tag:theconversation.com,2011:/fr/topics/conversation-697/articlesConversation – The Conversation2023-06-30T05:08:01Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2088362023-06-30T05:08:01Z2023-06-30T05:08:01Z‘Oh that happened to me, too!’ Sharing your experiences in conversation is common but sometimes it’s best to just listen<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/534963/original/file-20230630-23-4573r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C5982%2C3979&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.pexels.com/photo/ethnic-psychologist-touching-black-depressed-clients-shoulder-5699491/">Pexels/Alex Green</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Do you have a friend who responds to almost every anecdote you tell with “Oh my gosh, me too! This reminds me of when that happened to me.” Or perhaps <em>you</em> are that friend. Maybe you instinctively aim to bond with others by talking about experiences you’ve had that feel similar to what your friend has just shared.</p>
<p>In psychology, this is called “<a href="https://theconversation.com/now-lets-talk-about-me-self-disclosure-is-intrinsically-rewarding-6897">self-disclosure</a>” – a habit of disclosing something about yourself to another person, often in an effort to forge a connection. </p>
<p>But while this practice feels incredibly natural to some (more commonly extroverts than introverts), it can rub others the wrong way, as a recent viral tweet showed:</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1673935926915989506"}"></div></p>
<p>Some furiously agreed, while others felt <em>not</em> responding to a friend’s story with your own experiences would almost violate the norms of conversation.</p>
<p>So why does self-disclosure elicit such strong reactions? And what can psychology tell us about this habit?</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/now-lets-talk-about-me-self-disclosure-is-intrinsically-rewarding-6897">Now, let's talk about me: self-disclosure is intrinsically rewarding</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Why do people use self-disclosure?</h2>
<p>Self-disclosure is a bonding tool – a way of sharing part of yourself. It can <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00558/full">deepen intimacy and friendships</a> and makes you a bit vulnerable. That vulnerability can touch other people’s emotions, make them feel you trust them and can forge a connection.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1674563008624996353"}"></div></p>
<p>Women typically do it <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0749597822000036">more</a> than men. Perhaps that is because women tend to be socialised to be allowed to be vulnerable or express they are not coping, whereas men are often socialised not to.</p>
<h2>So why does it rub some people the wrong way?</h2>
<p>Nuance is important here. Not all self-disclosure is helpful, and likewise I don’t think anyone is arguing a person should just sit there mute while one friend does all the sharing. </p>
<p>The goal is to have a sense of balance; effective self-disclosure is <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S002210311300070X?via%3Dihub">reciprocal</a>. Jumping in too quickly with “Oh yes, that happened to me” can end up saturating conversation and make your friend feel they were never heard in the first place. It can be inadvertently invalidating and feel unbalanced.</p>
<p>A vast body of psychology research tells us that, fundamentally, humans want to feel heard. If your friend has just told you about some significant thing that happened to them, allow them space to express their feelings and their experience. </p>
<p>Another way a well-meaning self-disclosure can end up worsening imbalance is when one person shares an experience that, to them, feels equivalent – but it’s not. Your experience of the time you <em>almost</em> lost a loved one is not the same as your friend’s experience of actually losing a loved one.</p>
<p>Sometimes people jump in with advice and what, to them, feel like similar stories out of a misplaced effort to “fix” the first person’s problems.</p>
<p>But people’s contexts are different and their capacities are different.</p>
<p>Ironically, your effort to “help” may leave your friend with a sense of shame they are not able to solve their problem as easily as you did. </p>
<h2>Grief can be a flashpoint</h2>
<p>Grief can be a real flashpoint for this clash around self-disclosure. If a friend is talking about grief and your instinct is to jump in with your own experiences, please remember no two experiences of grief are the same.</p>
<p>Grief can be an incredibly isolating experience. In the acute aftermath people will swarm around you and you can feel very busy, but a few days or weeks later you are stuck with the grief while everyone else gets back to normal life. </p>
<p>Even close friends can panic and not know what to say after the immediate dust has settled. They may try to “help” by talking about their own experiences, or encourage a person to “move on” but this can end up invalidating the grieving person’s experience.</p>
<p>The safest thing is to listen and let a person who is grieving just feel their emotions.</p>
<h2>It’s not a competition</h2>
<p>Not every clash over self-disclosure is about grief, of course. Sometimes it can happen over seemingly banal things. You’re happy about a minor achievement, but after sharing it with a friend they say they did that, too.</p>
<p>If you’re an instinctive self-discloser, just be aware sharing your experiences too quickly after your friend can sometimes read as competitiveness (even if unintended).</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/534964/original/file-20230630-29-2ehxuy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/534964/original/file-20230630-29-2ehxuy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/534964/original/file-20230630-29-2ehxuy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/534964/original/file-20230630-29-2ehxuy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/534964/original/file-20230630-29-2ehxuy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/534964/original/file-20230630-29-2ehxuy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/534964/original/file-20230630-29-2ehxuy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/534964/original/file-20230630-29-2ehxuy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A self-disclosure clash can happen over something banal.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.pexels.com/photo/women-arguing-while-pointing-finger-in-face-at-home-6383206/">Pexels/Liza Summer</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Not all self-disclosure is wrong!</h2>
<p>Not all self-disclosure is harmful. Sharing your lived experiences can form the basis of a great conversation and a meaningful connection. We don’t want to be in a position where we have to shrink our joy because we worry about how it will affect anyone and everyone.</p>
<p>At the end of the day, we need to let each other have joy, sadness, anger and all the emotions. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1674530783711858691"}"></div></p>
<p>Giving each other the space to feel those emotions is key. When your friend tells their story, ask them a few questions about it. Give them time and space to reflect on their experience and how it affected them, before you jump in straight away with your own experience. </p>
<p>And remember that context is key: sometimes self-disclosure will deepen your connection, while other times talking about your experiences may not actually be all that helpful.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-do-your-earliest-childhood-memories-say-about-you-101330">What do your earliest childhood memories say about you?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/208836/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kim Felmingham has received funding from the NHMRC and the ARC.</span></em></p>Jumping in too quickly with ‘Oh yes, that happened to me’ can end up saturating conversation and make your friend feel they were never heard in the first place.Kim Felmingham, Chair of Clinical Psychology, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2076752023-06-20T16:18:45Z2023-06-20T16:18:45ZFour ways to have hard conversations with your friends – without making things worse<p>It’s painful to watch someone you care about make what you perceive as bad life choices – we all want what’s best for our loved ones. This can be particularly hard when they are dating someone you don’t think is good, or right for them.</p>
<p>Swifties (fans of Taylor Swift) have experienced this recently when Taylor Swift was reported to be dating famed bad boy and <a href="https://graziadaily.co.uk/celebrity/news/matt-healy-kissing-fans/">“problematic” favourite Matt Healy</a> from the band The 1975. Some fans form <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/feb/13/too-close-for-comfort-the-pitfalls-of-parasocial-relationships">parasocial relationships</a> with famous figures like Swift – this is where they feel like they have a close personal relationship with a celebrity and feel invested in them, while the celebrity has no idea who they are.</p>
<p><a href="https://slate.com/culture/2023/06/taylor-swift-matty-healy-dating-breakup-the-1975-backlash.html">Taylor Swift’s</a> actions are visible for public dissection and become fodder for viral social media content. As this new relationship dominated social media timelines, many of her fans found themselves wishing she would make a different choice.</p>
<p>Swifties called for her to end the relationship. For them, it was simple – Healy was no good for her. Swift seems to have listened as the pair are <a href="https://www.vulture.com/2023/06/why-taylor-swift-matty-healy-broke-up.html">reported to have parted ways</a>. But it’s not so easy to tell your real friends what to do with their lives, especially around matters of romance, love and sex. </p>
<h2>Unwanted advice</h2>
<p>Getting others to <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=o_tgBgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Robles,+J.+S.+(2015).+Directives.+In+K.+Tracy+(Ed.),+International+Encyclopedia+of+Language+and+Social+Interaction.+Wiley-Blackwell.&ots=ZQBwzIBulz&sig=TKFuo9yFHx-hfJhieOpqs5RzyiY#v=onepage&q&f=false">alter their behaviour</a> when they haven’t asked for help can come across as insulting or as a “<a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2007.00328.x?casa_token=ZCg59fc2yR8AAAAA:xLm28hkURU6xKxYyoS2E3qxD6SJgugoQ4RaprvDwhq0MMmriKqFW1CaToNKVdA1WTN_HCa5nLhbWPA">threat</a>”. </p>
<p>This is because when you try to direct others’ behaviour, it involves <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1461445610370126?casa_token=55ya38qn21EAAAAA:OIvkBQITOK7VZG2jvF--8tNl5LOyHgs7u6RORZ815jM5PMm9gmn5Ftn6KHEHiCSd2_WJl9VaRCfK">two dimensions</a>: one is entitlement (your power to tell them what to do) and the other is contingency (how difficult it would be for them to take that action). </p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="Quarter life, a series by The Conversation" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/451343/original/file-20220310-13-1bj6csd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/451343/original/file-20220310-13-1bj6csd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451343/original/file-20220310-13-1bj6csd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451343/original/file-20220310-13-1bj6csd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451343/original/file-20220310-13-1bj6csd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451343/original/file-20220310-13-1bj6csd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451343/original/file-20220310-13-1bj6csd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em><strong><a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/quarter-life-117947?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=UK+YP2022&utm_content=InArticleTop">This article is part of Quarter Life</a></strong>, a series about issues affecting those of us in our twenties and thirties. From the challenges of beginning a career and taking care of our mental health, to the excitement of starting a family, adopting a pet or just making friends as an adult. The articles in this series explore the questions and bring answers as we navigate this turbulent period of life.</em></p>
<p><em>You may be interested in:</em></p>
<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/he-is-always-there-to-listen-friendships-between-young-men-are-more-than-just-beers-and-banter-200301?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=UK+YP2022&utm_content=InArticleTop">‘He is always there to listen’: friendships between young men are more than just beers and banter</a></em></p>
<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/five-ways-to-be-a-good-housemate-to-your-parents-206300?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=UK+YP2022&utm_content=InArticleTop">Five ways to be a good ‘housemate’ to your parents</a></em></p>
<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/ethical-non-monogamy-what-to-know-about-these-often-misunderstood-relationships-200785?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=UK+YP2022&utm_content=InArticleTop">Ethical non-monogamy: what to know about these often misunderstood relationships</a></em></p>
<hr>
<p>Giving unsolicited advice is a high-entitlement move that suggests you know better – a hard thing to claim when you’re talking as an outsider about someone else’s private love life. And asking someone to break things off with someone they’ve committed to is a high-contingency act that requires serious effort, emotionally and otherwise.</p>
<p>This is frustrating because our opinions about our friends’ lives stem from wanting to help and <a href="https://academic.oup.com/hcr/article-abstract/23/4/454/4564959?redirectedFrom=PDF&casa_token=5bGYuWw69GcAAAAA:Ulai54Dk9MxZoXERGO3atywHDRMeXscEV6iypfsC9YVb_2OigXU7uQZNv8lGeknCs4afPwFP3GGAiA">support them</a>. And sometimes, friends make choices that are not just unwise, but dangerous. Hard conversations only get harder if the other person doesn’t agree there’s a problem, or that they need to change anything.</p>
<p><strong>1. Solid evidence</strong></p>
<p>First, you need a good base of evidence before you start these conversations. You cannot simply assert a belief when it comes to other people’s experiences: you need to be able to provide concrete examples that they can remember, interpret and discuss. </p>
<p>You can use some of the same basic strategies used in research to <a href="https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02088.x?casa_token=XKX0QI2dafoAAAAA:SXhzLjclI9BrZkaAT8EO9OITDrnieGucOFD4VZx4NYXIIuO4N6tD-cPzn2fUeBBLlxJDBSDkYvqHAw">understand and improve</a> the situation: specific, agreed examples give us a shared point of reference for doing so. Having these shared references is critical if the other person doesn’t see a problem. </p>
<p><strong>2. Increase their awareness of the impact</strong></p>
<p>Second, you’ll have to get them to notice that the situation might feel wrong and/or how what they’re doing might be impacting others in a negative way.</p>
<p>To do this, try encouraging them to acknowledge and track <a href="https://ray.yorksj.ac.uk/id/eprint/4116/9/Accepted%20version%20QRIP%20Huma%20Stokoe%20%20Sikveland.%20(2020).%20Putting%20persuasion%20(back)%20in%20its%20interactional%20context.pdf">evidence in their everyday life</a>. Have they noticed how their partner treats parents and friends? How do they feel in public versus private with their partner? Are there discrepancies between what their partner says versus what they do? Help your friend recognise the problem first themselves and they might be easier to persuade that something needs to change.</p>
<p><strong>3. Avoid conflict</strong></p>
<p>Third, if there is a potential for conflict there are small things you can do to deal with it. For example, when you anticipate disagreement you can <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/23273798.2019.1590609">design what you say</a> to head off possible misunderstandings or negative interpretations. </p>
<p>You might say “this is just how it seems to me”, or “I might not have the right idea” before you offer your view. You can also follow up on responses to check for possible misunderstandings as you go along. For example, you can keep asking questions to understand what a possible disagreement actually means – this approach is common in <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/08351813.2019.1631044">therapy</a>. </p>
<p>A good tactic involves <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0738399115300847?casa_token=tbv8B0-BYGIAAAAA:jlSnuIOSg-KFwiaF9XYC39GA6LhvJ9bB2irjqBurZ9mncwThOIHTJneVqwS-D8AF-lk-SypugQ">restating</a> what they’ve said back to them to confirm you’ve got it right. You should ensure the other person feels <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=TBArEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA101&ots=YlLxH2hzAn&sig=HBSAxNPLMyfFl7npNoeUa9O_9_o#v=onepage&q&f=false">carefully listened to and emotionally supported</a>, even if there is a disagreement.</p>
<p>If you do encounter disagreement, it is important to avoid <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/003803857801200107?casa_token=mmjgOb1Y-3QAAAAA:0XednDIOhWN9_sCoOaaCIB2RFzWPlGy3ED9vbWNnuI8P935X8W42jAtUyPajgxafXykeo-1f5AFi">blaming</a> the other person, or making <a href="https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/BF00148128.pdf">exaggerated statements</a> in the heat of the moment that they can easily reject. </p>
<p>However, this does not mean avoiding emotion altogether. <a href="https://www.torrossa.com/en/resources/an/5002154">Emotion</a> is a normal and useful dimension of everyday social interaction, but be thoughtful. For instance, rather than showing frustration, emphasise your own concern and respect for your friend.</p>
<p><strong>4. Baby steps</strong></p>
<p>Finally, take an incremental approach. Suggest a small step that involves making them aware of the possible issues in their relationship and plan for future conversations.</p>
<p>Keep in mind you are unlikely to succeed in getting them to consider your viewpoint in a <a href="https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/spc3.12755">single conversation</a>. The bigger the problem being addressed, the more work it takes and the longer it takes. It’s worth the struggle because it’s an investment in the future of your friend’s life. But until they agree something is wrong, they are unlikely to make any major changes.</p>
<p>Whether it was due to interventions from friends or not, Taylor Swift’s alleged bad relationship choice may have been <a href="https://www.vox.com/culture/2023/5/17/23726170/taylor-swift-matty-healy-dating-relationship-the-1975">undone</a> – but it doesn’t always turn out that way. Sometimes you have to live with other people’s bad decisions, at least until they too recognise the problem.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/207675/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jessica Robles does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Sometimes you have to let your friends know when they’ve made a bad choice in life but there’s a way to go about it.Jessica Robles, Lecturer in Social Psychology, Loughborough UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2016122023-05-31T12:40:32Z2023-05-31T12:40:32ZTo have better disagreements, change your words – here are 4 ways to make your counterpart feel heard and keep the conversation going<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/529157/original/file-20230530-19299-6ki5x9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=139%2C296%2C4750%2C3359&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Showing you're listening is a critical part of fraught discussions.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/female-financial-advisor-in-discussion-with-client-royalty-free-image/1163568487">Thomas Barwick/DigitalVision via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Your 18-year-old daughter announces she’s in love, dropping out of college and moving to Argentina. Your yoga-teaching brother refuses to get vaccinated for COVID-19 and is confident that fresh air is the best medicine. Your boss is hiring another white man for a leadership team already made up entirely of white men.</p>
<p>At home, at work and in civic spaces, it’s not uncommon to have conversations that make you question the intelligence and benevolence of your fellow human beings.</p>
<p>A natural reaction is to put forth the strongest argument for your own – clearly superior – perspective in the hope that logic and evidence will win the day. When that argument fails to have the intended persuasive impact, people often grow frustrated, and disagreement becomes conflict.</p>
<p>Thankfully, recent research offers a different approach.</p>
<p>For many years, psychologists have touted the benefits of making <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101402">parties in conflict feel heard</a>. Making someone you’re arguing with feel that you’re listening can calm the troubled waters, allowing both parties to get safely to the opposite shore. Two problems can get in the way, though. </p>
<p>First, when encountering disagreement, most people jump into “persuasion mode,” which doesn’t leave much room for listening, or even for pursuing other goals for the interaction. Any conversation could be an opportunity to learn something new, build a relationship that might bear fruit later, or simply have an interesting experience. But most of those goals get forgotten when the urge to persuade sets in. Second, and just as important, is that even when people do wish to make their counterparts feel heard they don’t know how to do so.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/529161/original/file-20230530-15-gcqiin.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="younger and older man in discussion across dining table" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/529161/original/file-20230530-15-gcqiin.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/529161/original/file-20230530-15-gcqiin.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/529161/original/file-20230530-15-gcqiin.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/529161/original/file-20230530-15-gcqiin.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/529161/original/file-20230530-15-gcqiin.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/529161/original/file-20230530-15-gcqiin.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/529161/original/file-20230530-15-gcqiin.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Pushing through your own perspective can feel like the only reason to engage.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/side-view-of-man-communicating-with-caretaker-at-royalty-free-image/640966567">Maskot via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=cL5ee2YAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">I lead a team</a> of <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ehAmxLAAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra">psychologists</a>, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=T_UngLgAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate">negotiation</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=lFzOk00AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">scholars</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=YQIetGgAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">and</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=8ewTeWUAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra">computational</a> linguists <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=7ufowOMAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">who</a> have spent years studying ways that parties in conflict can behave to make their counterpart feel they are thoughtfully engaging with their perspective.</p>
<p>Rather than trying to change how you think of or feel about your counterpart, our work suggests that you should focus on changing your own behavior. Focusing on behavior rather than thoughts and feelings has two benefits: You know when you are doing it right, and so does your counterpart. And one of the easiest behaviors to change is the words that you say.</p>
<h2>A conversational toolbox, based on what works</h2>
<p>We used the tools of computational linguistics to analyze thousands of interactions between people who disagree with each other on hot-button social and political issues: police brutality, campus sexual assault, affirmative action and COVID-19 vaccines. Based on these analyses, we developed an <a href="https://svn.r-project.org/Rjournal/trunk/html/_site/archive/2018/RJ-2018-079/RJ-2018-079.pdf">algorithm that picks out specific words and phrases</a> that make people in conflict feel that their counterpart is thoughtfully engaging with their perspective.</p>
<p>These words and phrases comprise a communication style we call “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.03.011">conversational receptiveness</a>.” People who use conversational receptiveness in their interactions are rated more positively by their conflict counterparts on a variety of traits.</p>
<p>Then we experimented with training people to use the words and phrases that have the most impact, even if they’re not naturally inclined to do so. For example, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.03.011">in one of our earlier studies</a>, we had people who held different positions about the Black Lives Matter movement talk to each other.</p>
<p>Those who received a brief conversational receptiveness training were seen as more desirable teammates and advisers by their counterpart. Training also turned out to make people more persuasive in their arguments than those who did not learn about conversational receptiveness.</p>
<p>We <a href="https://library.nioc.ir/latin-articles/2022/221696.pdf">encapsulate this conversational style</a> in the simple acronym H.E.A.R.:</p>
<ul>
<li><p><strong>H = Hedge your claims</strong>, even when you feel very certain about your beliefs. It signals a recognition that there are some cases or some people who might support your opponent’s perspective.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>E = Emphasize agreement</strong>. Find some common ground even when you disagree on a particular topic. This does not mean compromising or changing your mind, but rather recognizing that most people in the world can find some broad ideas or values to agree on.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>A = Acknowledge the opposing perspective</strong>. Rather than jumping in to your own argument, devote a few seconds to restating the other person’s position to demonstrate that you did indeed hear and understand it.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>R = Reframing to the positive</strong>. Avoid negative and contradictory words, such as “no,” “won’t” or “do not.” At the same time, increase your use of positive words to change the tone of the conversation.</p></li>
</ul>
<h2>Measuring benefits of the tools in practice</h2>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/5w3dg">In a recent set of studies</a>, my colleagues and I recruited people who were supportive of or hesitant about getting COVID-19 vaccinations. We paired vaccine-supportive participants with the vaccine hesitant and instructed them to persuade their partner to get the shot. Before the interaction, we randomly assigned the vaccine supporters to receive brief instructions in conversational receptiveness or guidance simply to use the best arguments they could think of.</p>
<p>We found that participants who received a couple minutes of instruction in conversational receptiveness were seen as more trustworthy and more reasonable by their counterparts. Their counterparts were also more willing to talk to them about other topics.</p>
<p>In a subsequent study, we explained the concept of conversational receptiveness to participants on both sides of the issue. Just knowing that they’d be engaging with someone trained in this technique made both parties report being 50% more willing to have a vaccine conversation. People felt more confident their discussion partner would hear them and less worried they’d be a dismissive jerk.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/529165/original/file-20230530-21-n99uui.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="doctor speaking with patient and looking open" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/529165/original/file-20230530-21-n99uui.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/529165/original/file-20230530-21-n99uui.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/529165/original/file-20230530-21-n99uui.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/529165/original/file-20230530-21-n99uui.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/529165/original/file-20230530-21-n99uui.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/529165/original/file-20230530-21-n99uui.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/529165/original/file-20230530-21-n99uui.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Conversational receptiveness can help keep both parties engaged.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/female-doctor-talking-to-patient-royalty-free-image/758309993">Science Photo Library via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Dialing down the acrimony</h2>
<p>This approach might be especially beneficial in conversations in which one party is highly motivated to engage while the other is less so. When such conversations turn contentious, the less motivated person can simply walk away.</p>
<p>That’s an all-too-familiar experience for parents of teenagers who seem to have advanced degrees in ignoring unwelcome advice. Health care providers often face a similar challenge when they try to persuade patients to change behaviors they do not wish to change. In the workplace, this burden is most acutely felt by people lower in the hierarchy trying to have their views heard by higher-ups who just don’t have to listen.</p>
<p>Conversational receptiveness is effective because it makes the interaction less confrontational and therefore less unpleasant. At the same time, it allows both parties to express their perspective. As a result, it gives people some confidence that if they approach a topic of disagreement, their partner will stay in the conversation, and the relationship will not sustain damage.</p>
<p>In recent years, many scholars across the social sciences have expressed concern about Americans’ seeming <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe1715">inability to talk to their political opponents</a>.</p>
<p>Yet the skills that are necessary for Democrats and Republicans to engage with one another are similarly lacking in our families and in our workplaces.</p>
<p>Our work on conversational receptiveness builds on extensive prior research on the benefits of showing engagement with opposing perspectives. By focusing on language that can be easily learned and precisely measured, we offer people a broadly applicable toolkit to live up to their best conversational intentions.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/201612/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Julia Minson receives funding from Rita Allen Foundation and the Doris Duke Foundation.
This article was produced with support from UC Berkeley's Greater Good Science Center and the John Templeton Foundation as part of the GGSC's initiative on Expanding Awareness of the Science of Intellectual Humility.</span></em></p>Researchers have identified ways to have more productive conversations – even when you’re talking to someone who holds an opposite view.Julia Minson, Associate Professor of Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy SchoolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1905942022-10-19T12:37:59Z2022-10-19T12:37:59ZAI is changing scientists’ understanding of language learning – and raising questions about an innate grammar<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/490505/original/file-20221018-24-64isla.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=1047%2C0%2C6844%2C4737&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Is living in a language-rich world enough to teach a child grammatical language?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/baby-girl-brushing-teeth-royalty-free-image/931044218">kate_sept2004/E+ via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Unlike the carefully scripted dialogue found in most books and movies, the language of everyday interaction tends to be messy and incomplete, full of false starts, interruptions and people talking over each other. From casual conversations between friends, to bickering between siblings, to formal discussions in a boardroom, <a href="https://vod.video.cornell.edu/media/TLG_C2_conversation-excerpt/1_419ixr2o">authentic conversation</a> is chaotic. It seems miraculous that anyone can learn language at all given the haphazard nature of the linguistic experience.</p>
<p>For this reason, many language scientists – including <a href="https://chomsky.info/">Noam Chomsky</a>, a founder of modern linguistics – believe that language learners require a kind of glue to rein in the unruly nature of everyday language. And that glue is grammar: a system of rules for generating grammatical sentences.</p>
<p>Children must have a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/15/science/expert-says-he-discerns-hard-wired-grammar-rules.html">grammar template wired into their brains</a> to help them overcome the limitations of their language experience – or so the thinking goes.</p>
<p>This template, for example, might contain a “super-rule” that dictates how new pieces are added to existing phrases. Children then only need to learn whether their native language is one, like English, where the verb goes before the object (as in “I eat sushi”), or one like Japanese, where the verb goes after the object (in Japanese, the same sentence is structured as “I sushi eat”).</p>
<p>But new insights into language learning are coming from an unlikely source: artificial intelligence. A new breed of large AI language models <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/08/robot-wrote-this-article-gpt-3">can write newspaper articles</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106553">poetry</a> and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/09/technology/codex-artificial-intelligence-coding.html">computer code</a> and <a href="https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yYkrbS5iAwdEQyynW/how-do-new-models-from-openai-deepmind-and-anthropic-perform">answer questions truthfully</a> after being exposed to vast amounts of language input. And even more astonishingly, they all do it without the help of grammar.</p>
<h2>Grammatical language without a grammar</h2>
<p>Even if their <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/24/science/artificial-intelligence-gpt3-writing-love.html">choice of words is sometimes strange</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/quasimondo/status/1284509525500989445">nonsensical</a> or contains <a href="https://twitter.com/an_open_mind/status/1284487376312709120">racist, sexist and other harmful biases</a>, one thing is very clear: the overwhelming majority of the output of these AI language models is grammatically correct. And yet, there are no grammar templates or rules hardwired into them – they rely on linguistic experience alone, messy as it may be.</p>
<p>GPT-3, arguably the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/15/magazine/ai-language.html">most well-known of these models</a>, is a gigantic <a href="https://interestingengineering.com/science/neural-networks">deep-learning neural network</a> with 175 billion parameters. It was trained to predict the next word in a sentence given what came before across hundreds of billions of words from the internet, books and Wikipedia. When it made a wrong prediction, its parameters were adjusted using an automatic learning algorithm.</p>
<p>Remarkably, GPT-3 can generate believable text reacting to prompts such as “A summary of the last ‘Fast and Furious’ movie is…” or “Write a poem in the style of Emily Dickinson.” Moreover, <a href="https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2005.14165">GPT-3 can respond</a> to SAT level analogies, reading comprehension questions and even solve simple arithmetic problems – all from learning how to predict the next word.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/490508/original/file-20221018-15-pw980u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="artist's rendition of a human brain connected to a tablet by many cords" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/490508/original/file-20221018-15-pw980u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/490508/original/file-20221018-15-pw980u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/490508/original/file-20221018-15-pw980u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/490508/original/file-20221018-15-pw980u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/490508/original/file-20221018-15-pw980u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/490508/original/file-20221018-15-pw980u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/490508/original/file-20221018-15-pw980u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An AI model and a human brain may generate the same language, but are they doing it the same way?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/artificial-intelligence-technology-royalty-free-image/1149178089">Just_Super/E+ via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Comparing AI models and human brains</h2>
<p>The similarity with human language doesn’t stop here, however. Research published in Nature Neuroscience demonstrated that these artificial deep-learning networks seem to use the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-022-01026-4">same computational principles as the human brain</a>. The research group, led by <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=VRw8v4kAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">neuroscientist Uri Hasson</a>, first compared how well <a href="https://openai.com/blog/better-language-models/">GPT-2</a> – a “little brother” of GPT-3 – and humans could predict the next word in a story taken from the podcast “This American Life”: people and the AI predicted the exact same word nearly 50% of the time.</p>
<p>The researchers recorded volunteers’ brain activity while listening to the story. The best explanation for the patterns of activation they observed was that people’s brains – like GPT-2 – were not just using the preceding one or two words when making predictions but relied on the accumulated context of up to 100 previous words. Altogether, the authors conclude: “Our finding of spontaneous predictive neural signals as participants listen to natural speech suggests that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-022-01026-4">active prediction may underlie humans’ lifelong language learning</a>.”</p>
<p>A possible concern is that these new AI language models are fed a lot of input: GPT-3 was trained on <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.07998">linguistic experience equivalent to 20,000 human years</a>. But <a href="https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.10.04.510681">a preliminary study</a> that has not yet been peer-reviewed found that GPT-2 can still model human next-word predictions and brain activations even when trained on just 100 million words. That’s well within the amount of linguistic input that an average child might <a href="https://doi.org/10.1044/2016_AJSLP-15-0169">hear during the first 10 years of life</a>.</p>
<p>We are not suggesting that GPT-3 or GPT-2 learn language exactly like children do. Indeed, <a href="https://www.lengoo.com/blog/gpt3hype/">these AI models do not appear to comprehend much</a>, if anything, of what they are saying, whereas <a href="https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/morten-h-christiansen/the-language-game/9781541674981/">understanding is fundamental to human language use</a>. Still, what these models prove is that a learner – albeit a silicon one – can learn language well enough from mere exposure to produce perfectly good grammatical sentences and do so in a way that resembles human brain processing.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/490509/original/file-20221019-15-tit42e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="little girl whispers to a man while they read on a bed" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/490509/original/file-20221019-15-tit42e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/490509/original/file-20221019-15-tit42e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/490509/original/file-20221019-15-tit42e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/490509/original/file-20221019-15-tit42e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/490509/original/file-20221019-15-tit42e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/490509/original/file-20221019-15-tit42e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/490509/original/file-20221019-15-tit42e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">More back and forth yields more language learning.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/father-and-daughter-reading-a-book-in-bed-royalty-free-image/1227566554">Westend61 via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Rethinking language learning</h2>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199573776.001.0001">For years, many linguists have believed</a> that learning language is impossible without a built-in grammar template. The new AI models prove otherwise. They demonstrate that the ability to produce grammatical language can be learned from linguistic experience alone. Likewise, we suggest that <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-rebuts-chomsky-s-theory-of-language-learning/">children do not need an innate grammar</a> to learn language.</p>
<p>“Children should be seen, not heard” goes the old saying, but the latest AI language models suggest that nothing could be further from the truth. Instead, children need to be <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617742725">engaged in the back-and-forth of conversation</a> as much as possible to help them develop their language skills. Linguistic experience – not grammar – is key to becoming a competent language user.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/190594/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Morten H. Christiansen receives funding from the A&S New Frontier Grant Program at Cornell University. He is affiliated with the School of Communication and Culture and Interacting Minds Centre at Aarhus University, Denmark, as well as the Haskins Labs, New Haven, CT. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Pablo Contreras Kallens received funding from the A&S New Frontier Grant Program at Cornell University. </span></em></p>Linguists have long considered grammar to be the glue of language, and key to how children learn it. But new prose-writing AIs suggest language experience may be more important than grammar.Morten H. Christiansen, Professor of Psychology, Cornell UniversityPablo Contreras Kallens, Ph.D. Student in Psychology, Cornell UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1851592022-07-14T15:37:40Z2022-07-14T15:37:40ZGossip has long been misunderstood – here’s how it can help your work and social life<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/473649/original/file-20220712-32020-7cwiub.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=60%2C77%2C5691%2C3750&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/casual-businesswoman-whispering-secret-her-colleague-294787784">wavebreakmedia / Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Gossip gets a bad rap – from tabloids full of salacious celebrity gossip, to the badly behaved teens of television programmes like Gossip Girl. But while it might get dismissed or reported as an unsubstantiated rumour, gossip is a key part of <a href="https://www.allenandunwin.com/browse/books/academic-professional/politics-government/Havent-You-Heard-Marie-Le-Conte-9781788702874">politics</a> and the way the world works. </p>
<p>Gossipy women are over-represented in popular images of gossip. An informal analysis of 100 Google images of gossip revealed 62% were of women only, 7% were men only, and 31% showed men and women gossiping. This reinforces the popular and enduring myth that men don’t gossip, but <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2017.1411789">research shows</a> that men and women engage in the same amount of gossiping activity. </p>
<p>Gossip can be traced back to the origins of language. Evolutionary psychologist Robin Dunbar even argues that language evolved to <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1037/1089-2680.8.2.100?casa_token=2suijvPch-UAAAAA%3AHK4HB1eT_JOfu7iPecYaywy2X2Z_qHKDdWsJXXe2QlC_HdN19i-u__-I_oPEdjijPOMQqRFNXrX7cg">enable people to gossip</a>. From its earliest form to today, gossip has been a way to pass on socially useful information about who you could (and couldn’t) trust, who was a free rider, and who talked bullshit.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="Quarter life, a series by The Conversation" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/451343/original/file-20220310-13-1bj6csd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/451343/original/file-20220310-13-1bj6csd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451343/original/file-20220310-13-1bj6csd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451343/original/file-20220310-13-1bj6csd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451343/original/file-20220310-13-1bj6csd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451343/original/file-20220310-13-1bj6csd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451343/original/file-20220310-13-1bj6csd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em><strong><a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/quarter-life-117947?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=UK+YP2022&utm_content=InArticleTop">This article is part of Quarter Life</a></strong>, a series about issues affecting those of us in our twenties and thirties. From the challenges of beginning a career and taking care of our mental health, to the excitement of starting a family, adopting a pet or just making friends as an adult. The articles in this series explore the questions and bring answers as we navigate this turbulent period of life.</em></p>
<p><em>You may be interested in:</em></p>
<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/taking-a-mental-health-day-can-be-good-for-you-heres-how-to-make-the-most-of-one-186493?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=UK+YP2022&utm_content=InArticleTop">Taking a mental health day can be good for you – here’s how to make the most of one</a></em></p>
<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/why-you-should-travel-solo-this-summer-184000?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=UK+YP2022&utm_content=InArticleTop">Why you should travel solo this summer</a></em></p>
<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/what-trade-unions-do-and-what-joining-one-means-185450?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=UK+YP2022&utm_content=InArticleTop">What trade unions do and what joining one means</a></em></p>
<hr>
<p>This type of talk produced social cohesion and alleviated conflict. During the Middle Ages the word gossip (originally <em>godsibb</em> meaning “sponsor at baptism/godparent” in Old English) evolved to describe women who supported other <a href="https://www.historyextra.com/period/general-history/gossip-why-do-we-say-childbirth-meaning/">women during childbirth</a>. Over time and after a number of changes to spelling, the term gossip took on the meaning of a familiar acquaintance, a friend, and later to <a href="https://www.etymonline.com/word/gossip">“anyone engaging in familiar or idle talk”</a>. Today, the term is used and interpreted in a number of ways, as a verb “to gossip”, a noun “the gossip” or even to refer to a specific person who engages in gossipy behaviour – “a gossip”.</p>
<p>There was no negative meaning attached to gossip until around the time of the <a href="https://www.waterstones.com/book/witches-witch-hunting-and-women/silvia-federici//9781629635682?">European witch hunts</a> in the 16th to 18th centuries. Gossip was a catalyst for accusations of witchcraft and sorcery, leading to inhumane use of medieval <a href="https://www.european-traveler.com/germany/visit-the-medieval-crime-or-torture-museum-in-rothenburg-ob-der-tauber/">instruments of torture</a>. The “scold’s bridle” was designed to punish and prevent women from speaking. Thus, gossip’s negative reputation and stereotype as “women’s talk” began.</p>
<p>Paradoxically, at the same time, gossip as men’s talk spread throughout the 17th and 18th centuries in English <a href="https://www.bl.uk/restoration-18th-century-literature/articles/newspapers-gossip-and-coffee-house-culture">coffee houses</a>. As exclusive resorts of the educated and rich, they were places where learned men (there is little evidence of women in coffee houses, unless as servants) and their male students came to demonstrate their wit and intellectual talents. Here, the myth that women gossip but men have serious conversations was born. </p>
<p>My research into <a href="https://www.routledge.com/Gossip-and-Organizations/Waddington/p/book/9781138018310">gossip and organisations</a> shatters the illusion that gossip is trivial or dangerous women’s talk. When interviewing men about their experience of gossip at work, they often begin by saying “I’m not one to gossip, but …”, and then go on at length to talk about how they use gossip strategically and politically.</p>
<p>I have encountered many euphemisms for gossip such as “shop talk”, “post-meeting debriefing” and “corridor conversations”. Men seem to feel more comfortable with these terms. Rather than asking “what’s the gossip?” on return from holiday, they are more likely to ask “what’s been going on?”. The intention behind the question is the same, but the latter may soften the shame associated with being a gossip. Similarly, words I have heard used to describe people who gossip are “they are a good listener” and have “good people skills”.</p>
<h2>Gossip at work</h2>
<p>There is a wealth of material calling for gossip to be <a href="https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/employee-relations/pages/office-gossip-policies.aspx">eliminated in the workplace</a>, and <a href="https://www.clcpublications.com/shop/resisting-gossip/">books</a> advocating spiritual reasons for resisting gossip. </p>
<p>Popular stereotypes of gossip overemphasise the negative judgements made in gossip, but it can be associated with <a href="https://www.compassioninpolitics.com/about_us">compassion</a>, empathy and noticing suffering. Gossip is a way of expressing emotions, both positive and negative, a way of “letting off steam” and an emotional reaction to perceived social injustice.</p>
<p>There are also times when gossip is an expression of concern about unethical or unprofessional behaviour – for instance when there is <a href="https://law.stanford.edu/2018/08/06/when-sexual-abuse-is-common-knowledge-but-nobody-speaks-up/">“common knowledge”</a> about sexual abuse, but nobody speaks up. When the topic of gossip is about poor practice in organisations, it can act as an <a href="https://research.westminster.ac.uk/9w562/rethinking-gossip-and-scandal-in">early warning signal</a> that should be heeded, rather than ignored or disregarded. </p>
<p>I am not saying that all gossip is good. There are times when gossip can do harm to the <a href="https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2020.0301">reputation</a> of people and organisations. <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/beer.12436">Negative gossip</a> is a form of bullying, which is detrimental to people’s wellbeing. The decision to gossip – or not – is always an ethical decision. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A woman sits at her desk working on a laptop, while in the background a male and female colleague whisper and point at her." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/473653/original/file-20220712-27-zi1brg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/473653/original/file-20220712-27-zi1brg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/473653/original/file-20220712-27-zi1brg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/473653/original/file-20220712-27-zi1brg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/473653/original/file-20220712-27-zi1brg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/473653/original/file-20220712-27-zi1brg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/473653/original/file-20220712-27-zi1brg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Gossip isn’t always good – it can quickly become bullying.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/two-young-malicious-employees-gossiping-about-1101216494">Kzenon / Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A new understanding</h2>
<p>Gossip has undergone a slow rehabilitation since I first began researching and writing about it over 25 years ago. As my recent book <a href="https://www.routledge.com/Gossip-Organization-and-Work-A-Research-Overview/Waddington/p/book/9780367653002">Gossip, Organization and Work</a> shows, gossip is being taken seriously as a topic of research in <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-gossip-and-reputation-9780190494087?cc=us&lang=en&">communication</a> and business. </p>
<p>Globally, the <a href="https://journals.openedition.org/ejas/16587">#MeToo</a> movement has changed perceptions of gossip, as has the rise of “<a href="https://www.ibe.org.uk/resource/can-you-achieve-a-global-speak-up-culture.html">speak up cultures</a>” and the creation of psychologically safe environments where truth can be told without fear of recrimination. <a href="https://www.gov.uk/whistleblowing">Whistleblowing</a> is vital for exposing misconduct or hidden threats and maintaining an open society. The focus has now shifted from gossip as a problem itself, to gossip as a way to represent the “problem behind the problem” – exposing structural issues that have been swept under the rug.</p>
<p>The pandemic has also shone a spotlight on the benefits of gossip. Almost overnight, lockdowns removed opportunities for the casual conversations that constitute gossip – conversations in the coffee queue, and before or after meetings. As many people return to the office, they may realise how important these little <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1059601121992887">moments of gossip</a> are to social bonds and cooperation.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/185159/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kathryn Waddington does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Gossip has a long history in forming social bonds, and can be an important part of the workplace.Kathryn Waddington, Reader in Psychology, University of WestminsterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1835592022-05-30T16:17:10Z2022-05-30T16:17:10ZFive tips for discussing diversity at work with those who seem dismissive or resistant<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/465725/original/file-20220527-25-hknacz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Approach conversations with curiosity.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/smiling-african-businesswoman-looking-over-her-793367872">Ground Picture | Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Diversity and inclusion initiatives are supposed to <a href="https://theconversation.com/inclusion-starts-with-better-management-heres-what-employees-say-about-making-diversity-work-141878">make a workplace more equal</a> and welcoming. But not everyone agrees on quite what that looks like or whether it’s important. Indeed, some people can be dismissive or even opposed to the idea.</p>
<p>Let’s be clear: people from marginalised groups shouldn’t have to engage in debates about their dignity or worth, as some would have them do. But on other more general issues like inclusion or positive action initiatives, people can act resistant or dismissive if they don’t understand the concepts being used or aren’t clear on what an initiative is for. It’s what workplace psychologists term “<a href="https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/edit/10.4324/9781003026907/diversity-resistance-organizations-kecia-thomas">diversity resistance</a>”.</p>
<p>Having as many people as possible take part in inclusion efforts really helps to actually make progress. So at least trying to have a conversation is important. And even if that person isn’t convinced, you may be helping onlookers to understand. Here are five steps that can help you get started.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="Quarter life, a series by The Conversation" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/451343/original/file-20220310-13-1bj6csd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/451343/original/file-20220310-13-1bj6csd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451343/original/file-20220310-13-1bj6csd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451343/original/file-20220310-13-1bj6csd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451343/original/file-20220310-13-1bj6csd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451343/original/file-20220310-13-1bj6csd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451343/original/file-20220310-13-1bj6csd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em><strong><a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/quarter-life-117947?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=UK+YP2022&utm_content=InArticleTop">This article is part of Quarter Life</a></strong>, a series about issues affecting those of us in our twenties and thirties. From the challenges of beginning a career and taking care of our mental health, to the excitement of starting a family, adopting a pet or just making friends as an adult. The articles in this series explore the questions and bring answers as we navigate this turbulent period of life.</em></p>
<p><em>You may be interested in:</em></p>
<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/six-misunderstood-concepts-about-diversity-in-the-workplace-and-why-they-matter-181289">Six misunderstood concepts about diversity in the workplace and why they matter</a></em></p>
<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/the-psychology-of-being-a-better-ally-in-the-office-and-beyond-140902">The psychology of being a better ally in the office – and beyond</a></em></p>
<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/diversity-in-the-workplace-must-be-matched-with-an-atmosphere-of-genuine-inclusion-173352">Diversity in the workplace must be matched with an atmosphere of genuine inclusion</a></em></p>
<hr>
<h2>1. Drop the temperature</h2>
<p>Approaching someone about diversity can seem confrontational. It’s also easy to get angry when someone appears to be threatening or belittling. </p>
<p>So before you don your armour and grab your sword, try to take a moment to cool down. As Lemony Snicket says, “If everyone fought fire with fire, the whole world would go up in smoke.” Instead, approach the conversation with <a href="https://theconversation.com/curiosity-were-studying-the-brain-to-help-you-harness-it-122351">curiosity</a>. You can learn from this person in the same way that they can learn from you. </p>
<p>There’s a limit to this of course. You should never have to put up with harassment or a hostile working environment, even if it is ostensibly framed as someone’s lack of understanding or “<a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/10/playing-devils-advocate-in-conversations-about-race-is-dangerous-and-counterproductive.html">just playing devil’s advocate</a>”. Some will never get on board, and you should work out when to stop engaging, if necessary. There’s also a balance to be struck between talking about inclusion and actually taking action. </p>
<h2>2. Prepare the script</h2>
<p>Research shows that we often <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.585493/full">depend on scripts</a> for social situations, especially those that are potentially tense, emotional or confrontational. Think of how we use certain stock phrases at funerals, for example, to avoid saying the wrong thing. </p>
<p>To keep the conversation on track, and to stick to step one, it can be useful to have a script ready, before you engage. Set out your stall and the reason for the conversation. Try to avoid phrasing that makes it seem aggressive or confrontational. The words you use will be best chosen by you as befitting your style and context, but it’s worth taking the time to consider them carefully before you speak.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="An Asian woman wearing a yellow sweatshirt and black tunnel earrings sits at a computer with an LGBTQ+ flag in the background." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/465727/original/file-20220527-13-xv2jrk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/465727/original/file-20220527-13-xv2jrk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/465727/original/file-20220527-13-xv2jrk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/465727/original/file-20220527-13-xv2jrk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/465727/original/file-20220527-13-xv2jrk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/465727/original/file-20220527-13-xv2jrk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/465727/original/file-20220527-13-xv2jrk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Know what your aim for the conversation is and think about the right words to use.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/young-asian-tomboy-woman-casual-attire-1982688281">Atstock Productions | Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>3. Understand their reasons</h2>
<p>Before you engage, try to work out why the other person is reacting negatively. Is it “<a href="https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/full/10.1027/2151-2604/a000222">reactance</a>”? Psychology scholars use this term to describe the uncomfortable feelings, and subsequent negative reactions, that may arise when someone feels (correctly or incorrectly) that their <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-psychology-of-believing-in-free-will-97193">free will</a> is somehow being curbed. </p>
<p>Reactance has been used, for example, to explain <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0246317">the resistance to wearing a face-mask</a>. Similarly, someone might react negatively to an inclusion initiative – particularly if it is something like mandatory unconscious bias training – if they feel that they feel that they are losing autonomy. </p>
<p>Or is it fragility? Fragility relates to the negative reactions (anger, fear and guilt) and behaviours (arguing, deliberate silence, or exiting the conversation) one has when confronted with issues of discrimination or privilege. Discussions and initiatives concerning racial diversity and inclusion, for example, often trigger “<a href="http://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/view/249">white fragility</a>”. </p>
<h2>4. Explore why it’s important</h2>
<p>Many people don’t want to openly criticise an inclusion initiative publicly (at an all-staff meeting, for example). They might however mutter about it among their team or close colleagues. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="An overhead shot of a group meeting in an open-plan office." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/465740/original/file-20220527-11-ok8q2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/465740/original/file-20220527-11-ok8q2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/465740/original/file-20220527-11-ok8q2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/465740/original/file-20220527-11-ok8q2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/465740/original/file-20220527-11-ok8q2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/465740/original/file-20220527-11-ok8q2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/465740/original/file-20220527-11-ok8q2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">People might resist diversity initiatives when they feel their autonomy is threatened.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/businessman-making-presentation-office-colleagues-174539279">Monkey Business Images | Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This could be because they think that it will be ineffective. They may be right. We often don’t know how effective an inclusion initiative will be. Maybe their experience of the organisation or technical insight could be useful here. That could be one way of getting them to join the conversation, even if they don’t necessarily understand all of the background concepts or topics in depth. </p>
<p>It could also be that they don’t see the point or importance of the initiative. In this case, a one-to-one conversation that allows the person to openly question the concept or initiative may be useful. You might be the right person to initiate that conversation. Or, if you aren’t, think about who might be.</p>
<h2>5. Acknowledge that you don’t know everything</h2>
<p>No one knows everything. I’ve researched equality, diversity and inclusion for over a decade and I still benefit greatly from the insights my students, co-authors and colleagues share. Inclusion is a complex and constantly evolving topic.</p>
<p>Acknowledging your own ignorance drops the temperature. You go from a teacher-and-student dynamic to two people trying to figure things out together. Share what you do know. Signpost to resources from those with that lived experience. And listen. </p>
<p>The person you’re talking with might also give you insight into what they’re thinking, their experiences, or how they arrived at their current thinking. These are all important things to know for future conversations. And the hope, really, is that you will keep talking.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/183559/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ciarán McFadden has previously received funding from the Irish Research Council, the Fulbright Ireland Commission, and the Carnegie Trust.</span></em></p>Finding ways to make talking about diversity less of a confrontation and more of a dialogue is crucial.Ciarán McFadden, Lecturer in Human Resource Management and Organizational Behavior, Edinburgh Napier UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1750322022-01-26T13:25:58Z2022-01-26T13:25:58ZDoes it really empower women to expect them to make the first move?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/442143/original/file-20220124-15-5es5ak.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C699%2C4052%2C2908&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Bumble seeks to challenge what the company calls 'the antiquated rules of dating.'</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/teddy-boys-and-girls-of-barking-from-a-contact-sheet-news-photo/1360179813">Daily Herald Archive/National Science & Media Museum/SSPL via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Heterosexual dating conventions have long held that men make the first move: first to flirt, first to ask out on a date, first to propose. </p>
<p>What if the roles were reversed?</p>
<p>That’s what one dating app, Bumble, has tried to do.</p>
<p>Bumble brands itself as a <a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2015/08/bumble-app-whitney-wolfe">feminist dating app</a> that’s designed to empower women. According to <a href="https://bumble.com/">Bumble’s website</a>, the app was developed to “challenge the antiquated rules of dating” by requiring those who identify as women to initiate communication with men they match with.</p>
<p>With over 100 million users as of 2020, <a href="https://www.businessofapps.com/data/bumble-statistics/">Bumble is one of the most popular dating apps</a> on the market, and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5FmVpQ4iO4">in interviews I conducted with over 100 people about online dating</a> in my <a href="https://connectingdigitally.com/">“Connecting Digitally” study</a>, more than half reported using Bumble. </p>
<p>But my research shows that Bumble, despite purporting to empower women, leaves many female users feeling frustrated and vulnerable. This disconnect can be linked in part to the ways in which many men engage with online dating apps.</p>
<h2>When a match is meaningless</h2>
<p>Bumble’s attempts at “<a href="https://bumble.com/">levelling the playing field and changing the dynamics of dating</a>” and empowering users to “<a href="https://bumble.com/">connect with confidence</a>” makes sense in theory, but not in practice. </p>
<p><a href="https://youtu.be/H5FmVpQ4iO4">Women in my study reported</a> a number of counterproductive user practices based on their own swiping experiences and conversations with male Bumble users.</p>
<p>A 39-year-old female participant in my study described the frustration of making the first move and not getting any response: “So then all of a sudden you’re a match, but they would never say anything or respond to you … you wouldn’t hear from them. What’s the point? Why even bother?”</p>
<p>Rather than evaluating profiles carefully and swiping “yes” on women they’re serious about, men are often <a href="https://www.tdx.cat/handle/10803/670200">likely to swipe right based only on the profile photo</a>.</p>
<p>In addition, many men approach online dating as a numbers game and practice what some call “<a href="https://twitter.com/bumble/status/1139706620416425989?lang=en">power swiping</a>” or “<a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0265407517706419">shotgun swiping</a>” by saying “yes” to everyone and seeing who shows interest and matches with them. Many of them will only read a women’s profile information after matching.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1139706620416425989"}"></div></p>
<p>Lastly, because some men are <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3710505/What-Tinder-strategy-Men-likely-casually-swipe-right-women-match-attract-them.html">just swiping for the ego boost</a> of “likes,” they’ll simply delete the match rather than respond to a women’s invitation to chat. </p>
<p>Women in my study often pointed out that a match was far from a guarantee of mutual interest. Unfortunately, due to “<a href="https://lithub.com/swipe-right-for-loneliness-on-the-gamification-of-dating-apps/">the gamification of dating</a>” – the way the apps are designed to be engaging and addictive – mindless swiping is a common phenomena across all dating apps, not just Bumble. </p>
<h2>Communication and power</h2>
<p>For decades, language scholars have been researching how people connect – or fail to connect – <a href="https://doi.org/10.2307/412243">in conversation</a>.</p>
<p>We say that the person speaking “holds the floor,” and they can wield power through choosing the topic, talking for longer periods of time and steering the conversation in certain directions.</p>
<p>However, not all power is maintained through holding the floor. Not taking up a speaker’s topic in conversation, either by changing the topic or ignoring the question altogether, is another way to exercise power. </p>
<p>In other words, in any conversation, it takes two to tango. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00312.x">As the authors of a study on email communication and response times put it</a>, “failure to respond or to take the floor creates a breakdown.” On dating apps, not responding to an opening message is akin to ignoring someone who’s asking you a question in a face-to-face conversation.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A video billboard reads 'Woman. Fighter. Wife. Patriot. Feminist. Mother. Hero. Justice.'" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/442142/original/file-20220124-21-1f3lrvj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/442142/original/file-20220124-21-1f3lrvj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/442142/original/file-20220124-21-1f3lrvj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/442142/original/file-20220124-21-1f3lrvj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/442142/original/file-20220124-21-1f3lrvj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/442142/original/file-20220124-21-1f3lrvj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/442142/original/file-20220124-21-1f3lrvj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Bumble, which has made empowering women a key facet of its brand, pays tribute to former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in an advertisement.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/07.RBG.Bumble.UnionStation.WDC.23September2020_%2850381239022%29.jpg">Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>On Bumble, women may be given the control to take the floor first and direct the initial topic of conversation through, as Bumble terms it, “<a href="https://bumble.com/en/help/how-does-messaging-work-on-bumble#:%7E:text=Users%20who%20have%20First%20Move,First%20Moves%20are%20time%2Dsensitive!">first move privileges</a>.” However, when men fail to respond or unmatch after receiving that opening message, the women in my study reported feeling dismissed, rejected and, ultimately, disempowered.</p>
<p>In 2020, <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-01-17/for-bumble-the-future-isn-t-female-it-s-female-marketing">Bloomberg published an article</a> exploring Bumble’s marketing tactics and brand messaging. Though the company maintains that requiring women to message first “reduces harassment” and “creates a kinder exchange between two people,” the author of the article noted that Bumble was never able to provide tangible proof of “how Bumble was keeping women safer or leading to more equitable relationships.”</p>
<h2>Switching poles doesn’t solve the problem</h2>
<p>On a positive note, Bumble has become a catalyst for conversation about gender, power and communication in online dating. And while <a href="https://theconversation.com/love-lust-and-digital-dating-men-on-the-bumble-dating-app-arent-ready-for-the-queen-bee-120796">many may not be ready for women to make the first move</a>, most of the male and female Bumble users in my study <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5FmVpQ4iO">noted that they chose the app</a> precisely because of its philosophy of empowering women. To me, this speaks to the fact that people are ready to embrace Bumble’s goals of “<a href="https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/408946-female-driven-dating-app-bumble-publishes-full-page-ad-in-the">shaking up outdated gender norms</a>.”</p>
<p>That hasn’t stopped some men and women from decrying Bumble’s unique design as sexist. In fact, <a href="https://www.bumblemessagingsettlement.com/">a class action lawsuit filed in 2018 accused Bumble of discriminating</a> against heterosexual male app users because the app only allows women to send messages first. Bumble denied wrongdoing, but agreed to settle in 2021 to avoid further costly litigation.</p>
<p>A 37-year-old female participant in my study thought the app’s emphasis on gender was artificial and constrictive: “I don’t like it when people limit things by sex or gender. That doesn’t feel empowering to me. It just feels like they’re trying to [enact] reverse sexism.”</p>
<p>By creating a situation where the right to speak and direct conversation is only given to members identifying with one gender, the work of coming up with unique and engaging opening messages falls on that group. </p>
<p>Men have traditionally done more of this work. Many of them don’t exactly cherish initiating conversations with countless strangers, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23538-3_22">a process that’s rife with anxiety and rejection</a>. </p>
<p>For heterosexual matches on Bumble, women are now required to do the part. Yet to place the work of initiating conversation solely on one group seems to encourage passivity in the other party, which seems to only hamper healthy communication.</p>
<p>[<em>More than 140,000 readers get one of The Conversation’s informative newsletters.</em> <a href="https://memberservices.theconversation.com/newsletters/?source=inline-140K">Join the list today</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/175032/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Riki Thompson receives funding from University of Washington Royalty Research Fund and University of Washington Tacoma, School of Interdisciplinary Arts and Science Scholarship and Teaching Fund.</span></em></p>Dating apps like Bumble have tried to shake up the gender dynamics of dating. Some users say their efforts fall flat.Riki Thompson, Associate Professor of Digital Rhetoric and Writing Studies, University of WashingtonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1723802021-12-10T13:37:33Z2021-12-10T13:37:33ZGot Zoom fatigue? Out-of-sync brainwaves could be another reason videoconferencing is such a drag<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/436504/original/file-20211208-15-iliwgf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C6173%2C4112&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Conversation in person usually feels effortless. Conversation over video? Not so much.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/stressed-business-woman-working-from-home-on-laptop-royalty-free-image/1249628154">nensuria/iStock via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>During the pandemic, video calls became a way for me to connect with my aunt in a nursing home and with my extended family during holidays. Zoom was how I enjoyed trivia nights, happy hours and live performances. As a university professor, Zoom was also the way I conducted all of my work meetings, mentoring and teaching. </p>
<p>But I often felt drained after Zoom sessions, even some of those that I had scheduled for fun. <a href="https://news.stanford.edu/2021/02/23/four-causes-zoom-fatigue-solutions/">Several well-known factors</a> – intense eye contact, slightly misaligned eye contact, being on camera, limited body movement, lack of nonverbal communication – contribute to Zoom fatigue. But I was curious about why conversation felt more laborious and awkward over Zoom and other video-conferencing software, compared with in-person interactions.</p>
<p>As a researcher who <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=8j4_-aYAAAAJ&hl=en">studies psychology and linguistics</a>, I decided to examine the impact of video-conferencing on conversation. Together with three undergraduate students, I ran <a href="https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/xge0001150">two experiments</a>.</p>
<p>The first experiment found that response times to prerecorded yes/no questions more than tripled when the questions were played over Zoom instead of being played from the participant’s own computer. </p>
<p>The second experiment replicated the finding in natural, spontaneous conversation between friends. In that experiment, transition times between speakers averaged 135 milliseconds in person, but 487 milliseconds for the same pair talking over Zoom. While under half a second seems pretty quick, that difference is an eternity in terms of natural conversation rhythms.</p>
<p>We also found that people held the floor for longer during Zoom conversations, so there were fewer transitions between speakers. These experiments suggest that the natural rhythm of conversation is disrupted by videoconferencing apps like Zoom. </p>
<h2>Cognitive anatomy of a conversation</h2>
<p>I already had some expertise in studying conversation. Pre-pandemic, I conducted several experiments investigating how topic shifts and working memory load affect the timing of when speakers in a conversation take turns.</p>
<p>In that research, I found that <a href="https://cogsci.mindmodeling.org/2019/papers/0048/index.html">pauses between speakers were longer</a> when the two speakers were talking about different things, or if a speaker was distracted by another task while conversing. I originally became interested in the timing of turn transitions because planning a response during conversation is a complex process that people accomplish with lightning speed. </p>
<p>The average pause between speakers in two-party conversations is about one-fifth of a second. In comparison, it takes more than a half-second to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139508925238">move your foot from the accelerator to the brake</a> while driving – more than twice as long. </p>
<p>The speed of turn transitions indicates that listeners don’t wait until the end of a speaker’s utterance to begin planning a response. Rather, listeners simultaneously comprehend the current speaker, plan a response and predict the appropriate time to initiate that response. All of this multitasking ought to make conversation quite laborious, but it is not. </p>
<h2>Getting in sync</h2>
<p>Brainwaves are the rhythmic firing, or oscillation, of neurons in your brain. These oscillations may be one factor that helps make conversation effortless. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108610728">Several</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206432">researchers</a> have proposed that a neural oscillatory mechanism automatically synchronizes the firing rate of a group of neurons to the speech rate of your conversation partner. This oscillatory timing mechanism would relieve some of the mental effort in planning when to begin speaking, especially if it was <a href="https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.68066">combined with predictions</a> about the remainder of your partner’s utterance.</p>
<p>While there are many open questions about how oscillatory mechanisms affect perception and behavior, there is <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00320">direct</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4186">evidence</a> for neural oscillators that track syllable rate when syllables are presented at regular intervals. For example, when you hear syllables four times a second, the electrical activity in your brain <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4186">peaks at the same rate</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/435178/original/file-20211201-15-how79x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A spectrograph of human speech with a rough sine wave overlaid on it" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/435178/original/file-20211201-15-how79x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/435178/original/file-20211201-15-how79x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=115&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/435178/original/file-20211201-15-how79x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=115&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/435178/original/file-20211201-15-how79x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=115&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/435178/original/file-20211201-15-how79x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=145&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/435178/original/file-20211201-15-how79x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=145&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/435178/original/file-20211201-15-how79x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=145&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">This acoustic spectrogram of the utterance ‘Do you think surfers are scared of being bitten by a shark?’ has an overlaid oscillatory function (blue wave). This shows that midpoints of most syllables (numbered hash marks) occur at or near the wave troughs, regardless of syllable length. The hash marks were generated with a Praat script written by deJong and Wempe.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Julie Boland</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There is also evidence that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190618216.001.0001">oscillators can accommodate some variability</a> in syllable rate. This makes the notion that an automatic neural oscillator could track the fuzzy rhythms of speech plausible. For example, an oscillator with a period of 100 milliseconds could keep in sync with speech that varies from 80 milliseconds to 120 milliseconds per short syllable. Longer syllables are not a problem if their duration is a multiple of the duration for short syllables.</p>
<h2>Internet lag is a wrench in the mental gears</h2>
<p>My hunch was that this proposed oscillatory mechanism couldn’t function very well over Zoom due to variable transmission lags. In a video call, the audio and video signals are split into packets that zip across the internet. In our studies, each packet took around 30 to 70 milliseconds to travel from sender to receiver, including disassembly and reassembly.</p>
<p>While this is very fast, it adds too much additional variability for brainwaves to sync with speech rates automatically, and more arduous mental operations have to take over. This could help explain my sense that Zoom conversations were more fatiguing than having the same conversation in person would have been.</p>
<p><a href="https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/xge0001150">Our experiments</a> demonstrated that the natural rhythm of turn transitions between speakers is disrupted by Zoom. This disruption is consistent with what would happen if the neural ensemble that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190618216.001.0001">researchers believe normally synchronizes with speech</a> fell out of sync due to electronic transmission delays. </p>
<p>Our evidence supporting this explanation is indirect. We did not measure cortical oscillations, nor did we manipulate the electronic transmission delays. Research into the connection between neural oscillatory timing mechanisms and speech in general <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-020-0304-4">is promising</a> but not definitive.</p>
<p>Researchers in the field need to pin down an oscillatory mechanism for naturally occurring speech. From there, cortical tracking techniques could show whether such a mechanism is more stable in face-to-face conversations than with video-conferencing conversations, and how much lag and how much variability cause disruption. </p>
<p>Could the syllable-tracking oscillator tolerate relatively short but realistic electronic lags below 40 milliseconds, even if they varied dynamically from 15 to 39 milliseconds? Could it tolerate relatively long lags of 100 milliseconds if the transmission lag were constant instead of variable?</p>
<p>The knowledge gained from such research could open the door to technological improvements that help people get in sync and make videoconferencing conversations less of a cognitive drag.</p>
<p>[<em>Understand new developments in science, health and technology, each week.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/science-editors-picks-71/?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=science-understand">Subscribe to The Conversation’s science newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/172380/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Julie Boland does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It appears that the rhythms of your brain waves get in sync with the speech patterns of the person you’re conversing with. Videoconferencing throws off that syncing process.Julie Boland, Professor of Psychology and Linguistics, University of MichiganLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1651552021-09-17T12:19:35Z2021-09-17T12:19:35ZA direct recommendation from a doctor may be the final push someone needs to get vaccinated<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/421188/original/file-20210914-23-t44jsf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C2146%2C1391&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Sometimes facts and statistics aren't enough to convince someone to get the COVID-19 vaccine.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/offering-patient-centred-care-that-proves-effective-royalty-free-image/1301555107">PeopleImages/E+ via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Have you found yourself feeling frustrated when trying to convince a friend or family member to get vaccinated for COVID-19? Or maybe you are that friend or family member, and you’re fed up with people pushing you to get vaccinated.</p>
<p>Though the science is clear that <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7023e2">COVID-19 vaccines save lives</a>, it can be difficult to start a productive conversation about vaccination. And doctors experience the same challenge, too.</p>
<p>We are researchers at the UMass Chan Medical School who have been trying to address this challenge. One of us is a <a href="https://profiles.umassmed.edu/display/129771">critical care pulmonologist</a> who was on the front lines working in the COVID-19 intensive care unit during the darkest days of the pandemic. And one of us has <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=7NUJtB0AAAAJ&hl=en">studied patient perspectives on health and health care</a> for many years. To figure out how doctors can best talk to their patients about vaccination, we first needed to understand what patients were concerned about.</p>
<h2>Why people choose to get vaccinated (or not)</h2>
<p>In April 2020, when vaccines for COVID-19 were still undergoing testing, we <a href="https://doi.org/10.7326/M20-3569">asked 1,000 adults across the U.S.</a> about their vaccination plans, and why. Around 3 in 10 were not sure whether they would get vaccinated, and 1 in 10 planned not to get vaccinated. Both groups gave a variety of reasons for their reluctance, including concerns about vaccine safety and side effects, wanting to wait for additional information, thinking they were not personally at risk, and distrust of the government, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or vaccines. </p>
<p>We then <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.17294/2330-0698.1882">conducted another survey in January 2021</a> just as the vaccine was becoming available to the public, with a new sample of about 1,700 people. Reasons for vaccine reluctance hadn’t changed since April 2020. The most common reasons were concerns about vaccine safety, speed of vaccine development and insufficient testing, as well as a general distrust of the COVID-19 vaccines. </p>
<p><iframe id="Y11Vo" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Y11Vo/4/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>In addition, we found that those who planned on getting vaccinated knew more about COVID-19 transmission, the potential health effects of the disease and vaccine effectiveness. They also were much more likely to rely on data and statistics when making decisions about their health than those who were hesitant about getting vaccinated.</p>
<h2>Doctors can make a difference</h2>
<p>If people who are reluctant to get vaccinated don’t rely on statistics to make health decisions, what do they rely on? </p>
<p>Turns out their doctor plays a big role. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.12.016">Several</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2017-2312">studies</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.01.023">have shown</a> that many people rely on their doctor’s advice in making decisions about vaccines.</p>
<p>We tested different approaches doctors could take to talk to their patients about the COVID-19 vaccine. While all of the messages included statements that the patient was eligible for a safe and effective vaccine, they differed by what the doctor said following this information.</p>
<p>We found that the most effective message was an explicit recommendation (“I recommend that you get it”) coupled with a reference to protecting others (“It’s the best way to protect the people you are close to and keep them healthy”). About 27% of those who received this message became more likely to get vaccinated.</p>
<p>In comparison, the least effective message was elective, or open-ended (“So what do you think?”) – only 13% were more likely to be vaccinated after receiving this message.</p>
<p>[<em><a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/science-editors-picks-71/?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=science-corona-important">The Conversation’s most important coronavirus headlines, weekly in a science newsletter</a></em>]</p>
<p>When we followed up with people who were initially hesitant six months later, about 33% had since gotten vaccinated. Notably, of those who had a conversation with their doctor directly recommending vaccination, 52% had been vaccinated, compared to only 11% of those whose doctor had not recommended the vaccine.</p>
<p>Their reasons for vaccination varied. More than half cited wanting to protect others. Others expected that vaccination would be required, or were worried about getting COVID-19.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/421387/original/file-20210915-20-1kt8nmg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Masked health care provider in green scrubs talking to patient." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/421387/original/file-20210915-20-1kt8nmg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/421387/original/file-20210915-20-1kt8nmg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/421387/original/file-20210915-20-1kt8nmg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/421387/original/file-20210915-20-1kt8nmg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/421387/original/file-20210915-20-1kt8nmg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/421387/original/file-20210915-20-1kt8nmg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/421387/original/file-20210915-20-1kt8nmg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">How doctors talk about vaccination with their patients can influence whether they decide to get vaccinated.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/doctor-talking-to-patient-royalty-free-image/1225529688">Aekkarak Thongjiew/EyeEm via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What can you do?</h2>
<p>Getting at the heart of what motivates someone can be an important step in understanding their point of view. These findings may help you have more effective conversations with your family and friends – and even your own doctor.</p>
<p>If you are vaccinated and are seeking to encourage a friend or family member who is not:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Suggest that they talk to their doctor. The COVID-19 vaccines are <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/downloads/Guide-for-Jurisdictions-on-PCP-COVID-19-Vaccination.pdf">becoming available in doctors’ offices</a>, which will make it easier to get vaccinated in a familiar setting. Their doctor may also be able to provide the reassurance they need to feel good about getting the vaccine.</p></li>
<li><p>Talk about protecting others. Tell them how good it feels to play a role in reducing the spread of a potentially deadly disease.</p></li>
<li><p>Talk about protecting yourself. Tell them how freeing it is to feel safe. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>If you are not vaccinated, but are wondering whether you should be:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Talk to your doctor. Tell your doctor what worries you about getting vaccinated. Your doctor has current, accurate information on the COVID-19 vaccines and can answer your questions. You may be able to get vaccinated during your visit. If not, your doctor can give you information on where to get vaccinated.</p></li>
<li><p>Talk to people who have been vaccinated. Many have said they were <a href="https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/poll-finding/kff-covid-19-vaccine-monitor-in-their-own-words-six-months-later/">nervous or afraid</a> to get vaccinated, but once they received their COVID-19 shot, they felt safe and relieved.</p></li>
<li><p>Consider how you might feel in different situations. Some people don’t mind <a href="https://theconversation.com/emotion-is-a-big-part-of-how-you-assess-risk-and-why-its-so-hard-to-be-objective-about-pandemic-precautions-165917">taking chances</a> with their own health. Others can picture what it’s like to be in a hospital for weeks or be hooked up to a ventilator, and don’t want to take that risk. And almost everyone would feel terrible if they were <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/i-gave-my-dad-covid-19-survivors-grapple-guilt-infecting-n1207921">responsible for someone they cared about getting very sick</a>.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Figuring out how to have a productive conversation about COVID-19 vaccines can be difficult. Looping in your doctor is one way to close the communication gap.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/165155/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kathleen Mazor receives funding from the National Library of Medicine and the UMass Chan Medical School. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kimberly Fisher receives funding from the National Library of Medicine and the UMass Chan Medical School.</span></em></p>There are a variety of reasons why people do or don’t want to be vaccinated. Depending on how they frame their messaging around vaccination, doctors can often be the deciding factor.Kathleen Mazor, Professor of Medicine, UMass Chan Medical SchoolKimberly Fisher, Associate Professor of Pulmonology, UMass Chan Medical SchoolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1581862021-07-21T10:00:05Z2021-07-21T10:00:05ZReturning to the workplace? Here’s how to stay focused in a noisy office<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/410323/original/file-20210708-15-1vo33ik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=19%2C0%2C6533%2C4254&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">shutterstock</span> </figcaption></figure><p>With some offices set to reopen as restrictions ease, more of us may soon be working from somewhere other than the kitchen table. While a return to the office may sound thrilling for some, this isn’t going to be the case for everyone.</p>
<p>A 2020 <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/topics/economy/articles-reports/2020/09/22/most-workers-want-work-home-after-covid-19">poll from YouGov</a> found that most workers want to continue to work from home in some capacity after restrictions lift. But with news that <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57727567">some firms</a> have requested staff to return to the office from September (in some form or another), office life will be on the horizon for at least some of us. </p>
<p>For many people, a return to the office may also mean a return to shared workspaces, which may take a bit of adjustment after so long working at home. This may be particularly the case if your at home office has been fairly quiet. </p>
<p>Shared working spaces can mean more interruptions and noise to contend with. And this can increase feelings of <a href="https://interruptions.net/literature/O_Conail-CHI95-p262-o_conaill.pdf.">stress and frustration</a>. <a href="https://interruptions.net/literature/Hodgetts-JEP06.pdf">Research</a>, for example, shows that when we get interrupted and have to unexpectedly suspend what we’re doing to complete a separate activity – such as have an impromptu meeting with a colleague – our memory for the original task can decay. This can make it harder to pick up where we left off when we resume working.</p>
<p>Interruptions also increase the chance of <a href="https://interruptions.net/literature/Altmann-JExpPsycholGen14.pdf">errors and omissions</a> creeping in to our work. This can result in inaccuracies or more time needed to rectify those mistakes. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.noiseandhealth.org/article.asp?issn=1463-1741;year=2013;volume=15;issue=62;spage=73;epage=78;aulast=Perham;type=0;aid=NoiseHealth_2013_15_62_73_107160">Studies</a> show that we don’t even have to stop and attend to the distraction in the environment for it to impair our performance. Even when trying to block out background sound, mental disruption still arises. Simple tasks such as mental arithmetic are impaired by acoustically varying sounds – such as speech and music – as they clash with our brain’s ability to process information in a certain order.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Two office workers wearing masks and sitting at their desks chatting." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/410346/original/file-20210708-25-15v9tkf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/410346/original/file-20210708-25-15v9tkf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410346/original/file-20210708-25-15v9tkf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410346/original/file-20210708-25-15v9tkf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410346/original/file-20210708-25-15v9tkf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=469&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410346/original/file-20210708-25-15v9tkf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=469&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410346/original/file-20210708-25-15v9tkf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=469&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Office chat can be a welcome distraction after months of sitting at home alone.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/communication-meeting-office-after-returning-covid19-1823837372">Prostock-studio/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Similarly, tasks that involve understanding the meaning of language, such as reading and writing, are more impaired by sounds that contain language – such as speech and music with lyrics – due to a clash of <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/acp.1731?referrer_access_token=O9FRyKeM8MJNmqlYdIqg5U4keas67K9QMdWULTWMo8MP_iLK3G4zV9ktCbehgrNVg8QdUhJXf4fA1hO0wpIgnlhKmWH8L8wiEQo5c8idyHCNgv94lwkMjxKzpHiu3wmP6UF0GZyRUJKZa6zZiNCMfIbk4WjwyibZOPtVoQjBBHhBSjeSLNYBhHaT1a0Rf0ODNkGtkw6zN-ZixyNiOSMqwLevKJqW5HqAgQOJsT_3SAlg7ur1O9oHKzFs3aFl0OpX34-tD4_HEevpij7g2tSpl-6PtBUvqrMunAQo8UUAdOVyKulbbESMUynbCckp1gE1">processing semantic information</a>. So while it may feel lovely to be back surrounded with your colleagues again, it might initially be a little harder to get your head down if lots of conversations are going on around you.</p>
<p>While ignoring interruptions or background sound altogether isn’t always possible, research shows there are things you can do to help to keep disturbances to a minimum.</p>
<h2>Prepare your space</h2>
<p>Background sound can reduce performance on some tasks by <a href="https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1348/000712699161314">up to 50%</a>, so it’s worth thinking about what might help to keep this to a minimum. </p>
<p>If you really need to concentrate on a task, think about swapping desks or moving to a quieter area. If this isn’t possible, then <a href="https://content.iospress.com/articles/work/wor2421">noise-cancelling headphones</a> may help block out background noise. If nothing else, wearing headphones sends a message to co-workers that you are less open to conversation and therefore less likely to be interrupted. </p>
<h2>Plan for interruptions</h2>
<p>If you do need to break off, or get pulled away, try to find a natural pause in your work. <a href="https://interruptions.net/literature/Adamczyk-CHI04-p271-adamczyk.pdf">Research</a> shows that dealing with interruptions between tasks is less disruptive than stopping what you are doing in the moment and trying to pick it up again later. You might want to quickly note down key points that were foremost in your mind, or leave the mouse cursor on the position reached in an article. These <a href="https://interruptions.net/literature/Hodgetts-JEP_LMC06.pdf">cues</a> can help you to pick up where you left off. Even just pausing to make a mental note of what you were about to do next, can be beneficial when you come to resume.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="people working in office with breakout spaces." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/410349/original/file-20210708-15-1rr5eqg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/410349/original/file-20210708-15-1rr5eqg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=380&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410349/original/file-20210708-15-1rr5eqg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=380&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410349/original/file-20210708-15-1rr5eqg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=380&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410349/original/file-20210708-15-1rr5eqg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410349/original/file-20210708-15-1rr5eqg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410349/original/file-20210708-15-1rr5eqg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Don’t be afraid to change desks or even move to a different part of the office to get away from distractions.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/businesswomen-working-socially-distanced-cubicles-modern-1815143768">Southworks/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Consider music (depending what you’re doing)</h2>
<p><a href="https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1348/000712699161314">Research</a> shows that it’s easier to work in quieter spaces, but some people feel that listening to music can be <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/014107680109400404">beneficial</a>.<a href="https://www.nypl.org/sites/default/files/music_brain.pdf">Research</a> has shown, for example, that if your task is design-based – such as product design or architecture – and if the task you are working on requires you to mentally rotate objects, then listening to your favourite music before you start can improve your performance for a short period of time. </p>
<p>But for tasks that involve remembering things in order or understanding the meaning of text - such as mental arithmetic and reading and writing – your brain will process background music as distraction. It doesn’t matter if it’s music you like or dislike, or even whether the music is loud or quiet – <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/acp.1731">studies</a> show that you will be more prone to making errors.</p>
<p>Ultimately, heading back to the workplace is going to mean an adjustment period and some level of compromise when it comes to noise levels and interruptions. But, with many companies taking a flexible approach to remote and office working, hopefully you’ll be able to find a balance (and noise level) that suits you wherever you are.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/158186/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Your brain may have got used to working from home, here’s how to transition back to the office.Helen Hodgetts, Lecturer in Psychology, Cardiff Metropolitan UniversityNick Perham, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, Cardiff Metropolitan UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1617362021-05-28T15:38:13Z2021-05-28T15:38:13ZFriends: making audiences laugh by embracing the unexpected in conversation<p>The <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-57120599">Friends reunion</a> has undoubtedly been one of the biggest TV events of the year so far.</p>
<p>Over its ten series, the sitcom about a group of 20- and 30-somethings in New York had a massive cultural impact. It attracted plenty of <a href="https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-030-25429-2">scholarly</a> analysis, including critiques of its <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476418779624">gender</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476418778420">race</a> politics. Its scripts inspired <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10350330802217071">my own research</a> as a professor of social interaction.</p>
<p>Love it or loathe it (and I loved it), one of the striking things about Friends was that much of the humour depended on clever conversational devices, not just set-piece jokes or one-liners. Instead, the scriptwriters seemed to embrace the unexpected in conversation.</p>
<p>Think about the conversational rules for a successful invitation. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>A: What are you up to this evening? </p>
<p>B: Nothing much. </p>
<p>A: Want to go to the cinema? </p>
<p>B: Okay, great. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The design of an invitation – and any other action in conversation – depends on who we’re asking, what kind of relationship we have, what’s at stake and how important an acceptance (or rejection) is. These sorts of contingencies shape everything we say. </p>
<p>In the example above, B responds positively to A – doing what conversation analysts call a “preferred turn”. Although it might seem obvious that the “preferred” response to an invitation is acceptance, it’s not so obvious what the preferred response to a compliment is. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HRXVQ77ehRQ?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>If an invitation’s “preferred” response is acceptance, the best ways to ensure a positive outcome is to lead up to it, using a “pre” question like, “What are you up to this evening?” This lays the groundwork for a possible invitation, depending on B’s answer. We design what we say to help those we’re talking to avoid having to give negative responses.</p>
<p>Breaching these rules is one way that the Friends’ scriptwriters got audiences laughing from the very beginning.</p>
<h2>Generating the big laughs</h2>
<p>In one scene, Joey asks Phoebe if she’d like to help build furniture.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Joey: Hey Pheebs, you wanna help?</p>
<p>Phoebe: Ohhh!! I wish I could, but I don’t want to.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And the audience erupts in laughter. </p>
<p>Saying “yes” would mean giving the “preferred” response. It would most likely be done immediately, without elaboration, and it probably would not be funny. We can tell that Phoebe is going to say “no” when she says “Ohhh!! I wish I could”. This looks like it will be the start of a regular kind of rejection, showing an appreciation of the invitation and giving an excuse before turning it down.</p>
<p>But she follows this with: “I don’t want to.” Although this does provide an explanation for saying “no”, it’s not the sort of reason generally found in rejections. The usual way to say “no” is to say that you cannot accept the invitation, not that you don’t want to accept it. In ordinary conversation, such a turn might start an argument.</p>
<h2>The one with the invitation</h2>
<p>Earlier in the same scene, Ross asks Rachel if she wants to come to help him assemble the furniture. </p>
<p>But just before his invitation, Ross asks, “So Rachel what’re you, uh, what’re you up to tonight?” We can recognise this as leading up to something – it’s a “pre-invitation”. If Rachel is busy, Ross can avoid rejection by not issuing the invitation in the first place. </p>
<p>She replies: “Well, I was kinda supposed to be headed for Aruba on my honeymoon. So nothing!” Rachel could block any forthcoming invitation. But she gives Ross the conversational “go-ahead”.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Ross: If you don’t feel like being alone tonight, uh Joey an’ Chandler are comin’ over to help me put together my, my new furniture.</p>
<p>Rachel: Well actually thanks, but I think I’m just gonna hang out here tonight. It’s been a long day.</p>
<p>Ross: Oh sure, okay. Sure.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Invitations can, of course, be accepted or declined. But these aren’t equally valued alternatives. Rachel turns down the invitation — it’s a “dispreferred” response. Such responses are <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-13301-000">more intricate</a> than saying “yes”. Just look at how many words it takes Rachel to say “no”.</p>
<p>Dispreferred responses often occur after a delay. They may start with words like “well”, as Rachel’s does. They may contain an appreciation – as Rachel’s does (“actually thanks”). They may also contain explanations or excuses for why the speaker cannot produce the preferred response – as Rachel’s does (“it’s been a long day”). </p>
<p>But because it contains all these features, Rachel has said “no” in the regular way. There’s no breach. It’s not funny. The audience doesn’t laugh.</p>
<p>Pre-questions and “preference” were a regular device for the scriptwriters. For example, in another episode, a new scene starts with Monica asking Phoebe a question.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Monica: Hey Pheebs. You know what I’m thinking?</p>
<p>Phoebe: Oh!! Okay. It’s been so long since you’ve had sex you’re wondering if they’ve changed it?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And the audience laughs. </p>
<p>Rather than treat Monica’s question as a pre-question leading to some kind of announcement — and requiring a go-ahead (like,“what?”) — Phoebe responds to the form not the function of Monica’s question, treating it literally as an invitation to guess what she is thinking.</p>
<p>The Friends scriptwriters’ methods for generating laughter make the usually hidden <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/657275">conventions of language-use</a> visible. Creating humour this way, as well as through misunderstandings and non-sequiturs, was even used by <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-companion-to-shakespeares-language/dynamics-of-shakespearean-dialogue/4B6FF13EBDB78539ADBDBFD9475DAFE0">Shakespeare</a>. Whether the humour of Friends will appeal to audiences in another decade or century we cannot say, but leveraging the rules of social interaction is likely to keep us laughing for some time to come.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/161736/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Elizabeth Stokoe does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Friends has made audiences laugh by breaching what we expect to happen when people speak.Elizabeth Stokoe, Professor of Social Interaction, Loughborough UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1562312021-03-02T09:19:54Z2021-03-02T09:19:54ZOnly 2% of conversations end when we want them to – here’s why that’s cause for celebration<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/387008/original/file-20210301-15-1f6l0pk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=10%2C0%2C6699%2C4476&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/bad-first-impression-date-concept-dissatisfied-1892137996">Prostock-studio/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Everyone’s familiar with the sensation of being trapped in a conversation for too long – be that over the garden fence or by the office water cooler. On the other end of the spectrum, we’ve also experienced conversations that seem to end prematurely, leaving us dissatisfied and maybe even a little hurt.</p>
<p>Now, a <a href="https://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.2011809118">Harvard study</a> has found that this conversational disappointment may in fact be incredibly common. Involving 992 participants taking part in two-way discussions, the study found that less than 2% of conversations ended when both partners wanted them to. This figure was remarkably stable, irrespective of whether people were talking to a stranger or a lover.</p>
<p>The authors of the study believe this discrepancy is the result of a classic “coordination problem”, arising because people tend to hide their true desires, including when they want a conversation to end, in an effort to avoid being rude.</p>
<p>But our experience in conversation analysis would add that ending conversations elegantly is an elaborate social skill with many complex moves: akin to a final pirouette in a dance, or the crescendo in a piece of music. That means many conversations overrun for the sake of politeness and social solidarity, reaching a compromise that may suit neither party, but which crucially, and admirably, avoids offence. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A man appears to be boring a woman in conversation in a bar" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/387009/original/file-20210301-22-1m931bx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/387009/original/file-20210301-22-1m931bx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/387009/original/file-20210301-22-1m931bx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/387009/original/file-20210301-22-1m931bx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/387009/original/file-20210301-22-1m931bx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/387009/original/file-20210301-22-1m931bx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/387009/original/file-20210301-22-1m931bx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Even conversations with our romantic partners don’t end exactly when we want them to.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/sad-couple-having-conflict-relationship-problems-1035342085">NDAB Creativity/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Speak easy</h2>
<p>Conversations may seem simple, but they’re actually incredibly <a href="https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/TEXT.2007.009/html">skillful affairs</a>. They involve our navigation between thousands of cues, often responding instantly and appropriately to the <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal1018">subtlest of hints</a>. </p>
<p>We do all this automatically, often without recourse to conscious thought. And yet the Harvard study suggests that 98% of our conversations end unskillfully: reaching an unsatisfying conclusion either too early or too late.</p>
<p>In part, this communication gap is due to speakers hiding their desires from one another: the coordination problem. But it’s also a result of the rules that govern the way we talk with each other, and the way these rules compel us to cut short or extend our conversations.</p>
<p>Even free-flowing conversations follow a formal order and a set of rules, according to the <a href="https://blackwells.co.uk/bookshop/product/Lectures-on-Conversation-by-Harvey-Sacks-Gail-Jefferson/9781557867056">systematic analysis of conversation</a>. Even though most of us are <a href="https://www.hachette.co.uk/titles/elizabeth-stokoe/talk/9781472140845/">unaware</a> of these rules, we tend to follow them automatically, drawing on learning gained very early in life. </p>
<h2>Dancing dialogue</h2>
<p>To understand why the rules that govern our chit-chat result in our conversations ending too early or too late, it helps to see a conversation as a <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cooperative-action/409E1455713D43131F04C3F6B6815FF7">cooperative activity</a>, a little like a dance. </p>
<p>Just as partners in the tango respond to tiny hints and cues to direct their movements, conversations also involve a long string of micro-adjustments. And just as the tango ends with a flourish, conversations also tend to end with a set of moves that help partners reach a mutually agreed end point.</p>
<p>As one person speaks, they take in and adjust to the reactions of their partner. Facial expressions, shifts in gaze, body language, and even a cough can alter the trajectory of a speaker’s talk. This reciprocal behaviour is learned early: babies only a few weeks old are active participants in <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01492/full">turn-taking</a>, one of conversation’s fundamental rules.</p>
<p>These rules also contain a set of <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul-Drew/publication/299563444_Conversation_analysis_and_social_action/links/5702e18008aeade57a246b09/Conversation-analysis-and-social-action.pdf">social actions</a> which prepare conversations to hit off in particular directions. Asking someone, “have you eaten already?” is an example of a social action, and it’s used as a preliminary to set up a tangent about asking someone out to lunch. </p>
<p>Some actions even require <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00018.x">preliminaries to preliminaries</a>, like when people delicately ask: “Can I ask you a question?” From these examples alone, it’s clear that much of what we say is a formality that naturally extends the duration of our conversations.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/CN6anGiNMgs?wmode=transparent&start=2" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>Endgame</h2>
<p>To end a conversation, a social action is often used to avoid making a faux pas. These social actions are called “<a href="https://web.stanford.edu/%7Eeckert/Courses/l1562018/Readings/SchegloffSacks1973.pdf">closing routines</a>”, during which speakers confirm to each other that they are truly done. Saying “anyway” or “alright” in a certain tone can help precipitate a closing routine.</p>
<p>These closing routines often follow very specific moves. They first require a pre-closing statement, which announces the intention to end the conversation. This must be accepted by both parties in order for the next stage to start, which might in turn build to a familiar conversational conclusion and final salutations. </p>
<p>The problem is, closing routines tend to skew conversations away from their ideal point of conclusion. A participant may begin a closing routine too early after misinterpreting a cue, as when their partner says “anyway” without intending to begin a closing routine. On the other hand, a correctly initiated closing routine can still take some minutes to wrap up, which extends conversations beyond what one or more participants may deem their ideal duration.</p>
<p>The Harvard research exposes a fascinating aspect of our conversational behaviour, but its findings shouldn’t lead us to regard the majority of our conversations as interminable drags or brutally shortened chats. </p>
<p>Instead, the finding that only 2% of our conversations end when both participants want them to is, in a sense, cause for celebration. It means that the remaining 98% are instead conforming to the rhythm of the conversational dance: cooperating and responding to cues and prompts until they can part company – all without stepping too heavily on each other’s toes.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/156231/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The duration of our conversations is rarely ideal – but that’s the price we pay for social solidarity.Alessandra Fasulo, Senior Lecturer, Department of Psychology, University of PortsmouthIris Nomikou, Senior Lecturer, Department of Psychology, University of PortsmouthLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1473622020-11-19T02:08:11Z2020-11-19T02:08:11ZWatch your ums and uhs, spoken communication is about more than words<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/368173/original/file-20201109-21-1vuung1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=32%2C65%2C4701%2C3538&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1551845811-f63135691a4b?ixlib=rb-1.2.1&ixid=eyJhcHBfaWQiOjEyMDd9&auto=format&fit=crop&w=3150&q=80">Priscilla Du Preez/Unsplash</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>There’s been a lot of talk lately. In briefings, speeches and video meetings. In the coming weeks, there will be celebrations and toasts given. These are opportunities to attend to talk. </p>
<p>In talk, it’s not just words that create meaning. </p>
<p>Nonverbal cues, including stress on key words alongside the use of gaze and gesture, assist us when speaking or understanding others. Verbal cues such as “discourse markers” (for example, “okay”, “so”, “um”, “uh”) also accomplish important work in interaction. </p>
<p>Listeners conventionally associate ums and uhs with broken speech (called “dysfluency” in studies of communication) when speakers self-repair by <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/413107?seq=1">interrupting themselves to self-correct</a>. They might do this to more clearly express themselves or to conduct a word search. We all do this from time to time.</p>
<p>Yet research suggests <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ermk7/HC/HC_Readings/Clark_Fox.pdf">ums and uhs</a> also serve a range of other <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/34523270-how-we-talk">functions</a> in conversation. We know that <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01638530903223380">where they occur in talk, and how they are articulated</a> contribute to meaning. </p>
<h2>Like talking bullet points</h2>
<p>As well as being associated with repair in everyday speech stumbles or word gaps, ums and uhs mark openings of talk, new topics or a return to topic. </p>
<p>In extended speech, like a public presentation or speech, such markings are important for the listening audience so they can follow the meaning of what is being said. The uhs work like bullet points.</p>
<p>In conversation they also have an important role to play in politeness. The um at the beginning of a speaker’s turn indexes awareness that what is about to be said is “dispreferred”; that is, delicate or not what a listener expects or wants to hear, or something that the listener might be inclined to <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/413107?seq=1">reject</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/369222/original/file-20201113-15-cdkgc8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Wine glasses meeting for a toast." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/369222/original/file-20201113-15-cdkgc8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/369222/original/file-20201113-15-cdkgc8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369222/original/file-20201113-15-cdkgc8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369222/original/file-20201113-15-cdkgc8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369222/original/file-20201113-15-cdkgc8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369222/original/file-20201113-15-cdkgc8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/369222/original/file-20201113-15-cdkgc8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">And now a toast to, um, the end of 2020!</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/413107?seq=1">Unsplash</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/anxious-about-speaking-in-online-classes-and-meetings-here-are-7-tips-to-make-it-easier-144121">Anxious about speaking in online classes and meetings? Here are 7 tips to make it easier</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Talk in action</h2>
<p>The best way to study verbal cues is to transcribe talk in micro detail. This exercise can show why presentations with more ums and uhs are likely more frustrating to listen to. </p>
<p>Discourse transcription is time-consuming, so is done in short segments. A transcribed sample of the first two minutes and 40 seconds of a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6OrCKcvqwc">medical briefing by Victoria’s Deputy Chief Health Officer Allen Cheng</a>, generated a total of 34 occurrences of “um” and 21 of “uh”. </p>
<p>Eleven ums marked topic changes. As per <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=L4eRz301DWUC&lpg=PR7&ots=D7F7ya5m08&dq=Rendle-Short%2C%20J.%20(2006).%20The%20academic%20presentation%3A%20Situated%20talk%20in%20action.%20Aldershot%20England%3A%20Ashgate%20Publishing&lr&pg=PR7#v=onepage&q&f=false">previous research</a>, when marking a beginning or new topic, these were produced loudly, and were followed by pauses as per below which marked the opening of the talk: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>um [pause] I might just take the opportunity to explain how … </p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is a classic use of um to mark the beginning of talk. It has also been found in <a href="https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781315241500">academic lectures or seminars</a> and in <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01638530903223380">telephone openings</a> to mark the reason for the call. </p>
<p>Talk-back radio provides examples of um occurring after the greeting, as illustrated in this example from ABC Melbourne radio with <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eie5qRX39jw">host Virginia Trioli</a>.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Caller: How’re you going?</p>
<p>Virginia: Good thanks.</p>
<p>Caller: Ummm, I was picked up for speeding …</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Meanwhile, many of the ums and uhs (71%) in Professor Cheng’s briefing occurred in repair environments including a word search, as in the following where the um is stretched: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>… it’s not an exact um [pause] quantification but it is um uh — it is an indication … </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Here the first um is followed by a pause, while the second co-occurs with uh before the repetition of <em>it is</em>. These features create dysfluent speech. However, in both cases there is a successful outcome and return to topic after a momentary interruption. </p>
<p>Three samples from politicians — <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2uj8AMo3OQ">Victorian treasurer, Tim Pallas</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDdxBimmKiE">NSW premier Gladys Berejiklian</a>, and <a href="https://www.9news.com.au/videos/health/coronavirus-victoria-records-12-cases-overnight/ckg4ddgx6000t0hp1fd2uon1b">Victorian premier Dan Andrews</a> — show seasoned public communicators. </p>
<p>There was a greater number of uhs and ums in Tim Pallas’s speech (45) than in the premiers’ (25 and 10 respectively). Pallas was reporting on a range of financial support measures, and like Professor Cheng’s, whose talk was highly technical, this content was dense in terms of vocabulary. So, there was a greater number of word searches as both speakers worked to make their talk accessible. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367897/original/file-20201106-15-16fkyiq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Microphone on stage" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367897/original/file-20201106-15-16fkyiq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367897/original/file-20201106-15-16fkyiq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367897/original/file-20201106-15-16fkyiq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367897/original/file-20201106-15-16fkyiq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367897/original/file-20201106-15-16fkyiq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367897/original/file-20201106-15-16fkyiq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367897/original/file-20201106-15-16fkyiq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">When spoken, ‘um’ and ‘uh’ can signal topic changes or speech repair jobs.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1527261834078-9b37d35a4a32?ixlib=rb-1.2.1&ixid=eyJhcHBfaWQiOjEyMDd9&auto=format&fit=crop&w=3150&q=80">Unsplash</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/in-defence-of-jargon-it-might-be-infuriating-but-it-also-has-its-uses-148118">In defence of jargon – it might be infuriating but it also has its uses</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Um and uh have been <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03194926">found to facilitate comprehension</a>. They <a href="https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781315241500">guide the listener</a> through the overall format of the talk. However, research also suggests that too many ums and uhs <a href="https://schwa.byu.edu/files/2014/12/F2014-Robbins.pdf">can affect listener perceptions about speaker credibility</a> or how prepared they are. </p>
<p>On this basis, Daniel Andrews is the most effective communicator, although accessible content in his briefing was a factor.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/3-ways-to-get-your-point-across-while-wearing-a-mask-tips-from-an-award-winning-speech-coach-146644">3 ways to get your point across while wearing a mask – tips from an award-winning speech coach</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Speaking is complex and tough under pressure</h2>
<p>Speakers can improve the effectiveness of their communication; for example, through awareness of their ums and uhs, or by slowing down. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/368176/original/file-20201109-13-12ubv2t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="young man presents at whiteboard to a colleague" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/368176/original/file-20201109-13-12ubv2t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/368176/original/file-20201109-13-12ubv2t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368176/original/file-20201109-13-12ubv2t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368176/original/file-20201109-13-12ubv2t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=408&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368176/original/file-20201109-13-12ubv2t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=512&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368176/original/file-20201109-13-12ubv2t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=512&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368176/original/file-20201109-13-12ubv2t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=512&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Utterances like um and uh can act like bullet points during a presentation.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1599585113438-291af1a8d1db?ixlib=rb-1.2.1&ixid=eyJhcHBfaWQiOjEyMDd9&auto=format&fit=crop&w=3137&q=80">Unsplash/Photo by Tool Inc</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But we must remember that spontaneous extended talk to an audience — such as in a speech — is highly complex. </p>
<p>Speakers need to plan what they are going to say, watch the audience, and keep their talk going under time pressure. In a challenging public and televised space, they also need to be accurate, and choose words carefully. </p>
<p>Um, not talking under that kind of pressure? Uh I’ll … I’ll toast to that.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/147362/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anna Filipi does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Conversation analysis explains how ums and uhs facilitate communicationAnna Filipi, Senior lecturer, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1391522020-06-25T10:51:00Z2020-06-25T10:51:00ZCoronavirus scams: the science of how to spot and deal with nuisance callers<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/343517/original/file-20200623-188936-6wbsky.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=45%2C45%2C7494%2C4992&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/african-american-guy-casual-outfit-talking-1389404180">Shutterstock/GaudiLab</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Most of us have experienced unwanted calls at home. This is in spite of efforts by regulators, including the Information Commissioner’s Office and Ofcom, whose most recent report shows that <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0034/194974/nuisance-calls-joint-action-plan-2020.pdf">around half of the UK population</a> still receive <a href="https://theconversation.com/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-nuisance-phone-calls-55798">nuisance calls</a>. Many of these unsolicited calls annoy us because they interrupt our dinner or favourite TV show – but some, such as sales or scam calls, can cause distress or even harm. </p>
<p>To curb nuisance calls, you can sign up for <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/phones-telecoms-and-internet/advice-for-consumers/problems/tackling-nuisance-calls-and-messages/phone-company-services-that-can-help-tackle-nuisance-calls">an automated call blocking or filtering service</a>, opt out from receiving unsolicited calls by registering for the <a href="https://www.tpsonline.org.uk/">Telephone Preference Service,</a> or enlist the help of <a href="https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/soups2017/soups2017-sahin.pdf">Lenny the chatbot</a> to answer the phone and waste callers’ time.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vWrkDOt_IfM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>You may be thinking: I would never get swindled by scammers. Indeed <a href="https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity19/presentation/tu">research</a> suggests that fewer than four in 100 people fall for telephone scams. Still, scammers end up siphoning <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/soorajshah/2020/05/31/fraudsters-exploit-covid-19-to-scam-56m-from-victims/#1eb9a6f71506">millions of pounds</a> by preying on people’s vulnerabilities. </p>
<p>At present, against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic that has upended our daily routines, fraudsters have devised new scams that exploit <a href="https://www.actionfraud.police.uk/covid19">people’s uncertainties and fears of the virus</a> – and, most recently, the lack of clarity about <a href="https://www.which.co.uk/news/2020/06/nhs-covid-19-contact-tracing-message-how-can-i-tell-if-its-real-or-a-scam/">how the track and trace system</a> works.</p>
<p>Salespeople and scammers often disguise their identities to prevent us from figuring out their agendas. But the language they use can still betray them. So by paying attention to subtle linguistic cues you can determine if the call is genuine or not and decide if you should hang up. </p>
<p>Below we offer three tips on how to spot and deal with these nuisance callers, according to <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1472140834/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1">the science of conversation</a>.</p>
<h2>1. Spot and challenge the phoney familiarity</h2>
<p>The phone rings. You answer it. Even though the caller has an unfamiliar voice, she calls you by your first name and also introduces herself using only her first name. You don’t recognise the caller, but you also don’t want to be rude by revealing you have no idea who’s at the other end of the line. The caller moves on to ask how you’re doing and you feel compelled to answer and perhaps even to reciprocate. You may blame your poor memory for not remembering the caller. But of course you wouldn’t – she’s a <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08351813.2020.1739432">“cold” caller</a>. She’s trying to sell you something and she’s exploiting the <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226002261_The_Routine_as_Achievement">rituals of call openings</a> to build a relationship with you before getting down to business. </p>
<p>Some cold callers don’t stop at just implying prior acquaintanceship with call takers, they also claim they’ve called before – while others go as far as professing that you or another family member have asked them to call you back.</p>
<p><strong>Our tip:</strong> Politely but firmly challenge the phoney familiarity at the earliest possible point in the conversation. If you don’t remember talking to the salesperson before, this probably means it never happened – so feel free to say so.</p>
<h2>2. Spot the fake claims and verify the caller’s identity</h2>
<p>Scam callers use deceit throughout their scripts and will often claim they’re calling on behalf of recognisable organisations such as <a href="https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2019/07/new-warning-over-automated-scam-calls-/">your bank</a>, <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/phishing-and-bogus-emails-hm-revenue-and-customs-examples">the HMRC</a> or <a href="https://www.ageuk.org.uk/barnet/our-services/latest-scams/">the NHS</a> to get you to comply with their requests. </p>
<p>One strategy they use to prove the authenticity of the call and gain your trust is to show they hold personal information about you, such as your full name or email address – which they often simply lift from social media. </p>
<p>Scammers will also try to obtain sensitive details from you by using <a href="https://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/heritage/Site/Publications_files/EPISTEMICS_IN_ACTION.pdf">language that implies they already possess those details</a>, such as requests to confirm or verify your postcode or credit card number. Be especially suspicious if the call is unexpected and if the caller uses ultimatums or threats to pressure you into complying with their requests.</p>
<p><strong>Our tip:</strong> Don’t provide any personal details to the caller, if you cannot verify their identity through means independent of the call. Hang up and phone the organisation back using a telephone number you’ve obtained from their website.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/343515/original/file-20200623-188926-18nmnme.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=18%2C44%2C4185%2C2761&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/343515/original/file-20200623-188926-18nmnme.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343515/original/file-20200623-188926-18nmnme.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343515/original/file-20200623-188926-18nmnme.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343515/original/file-20200623-188926-18nmnme.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343515/original/file-20200623-188926-18nmnme.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/343515/original/file-20200623-188926-18nmnme.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Scammers play on people’s vulnerabilities – don’t get caught out.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/angry-enraged-senior-woman-yelling-landline-644165242">TeodorLazarev/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>3. Spot and avoid the ‘language traps’</h2>
<p>You’ve probably wondered how sales callers manage to surreptitiously persuade some of us to buy their products or at least to agree to a sales meeting. The examination of their skillful use of language reveals they often use “language traps” that create <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/14614456030050010101?casa_token=Yq1fIO0PXu4AAAAA:OqCrglEuRE1Akj7a-jS1prRwJJPp_8AnPFBe5uCNs3MROZGqeuDbebqLx7QSl3WHoHQWRYKxZxY">expectations we’ll accept their sales offers</a>.</p>
<p>Before they make a sales offer, for example, salespeople will try and entice us to <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332345118_Responding_to_the_double_implication_of_telemarketers'_opinion_queries">positively evaluate their products</a>: “In two years time, your money could multiply by five. How does that sound?”. Another technique is trying to get people to <a href="https://ray.yorksj.ac.uk/id/eprint/3305/1/%5bFull%20paper%5d%20Persuasive%20conduct%2028.5.18.pdf">admit a need for whatever they’re selling</a>: “You said you were looking to renew your telephone contract this month, right?”. Going along with these moves inadvertently implies we are interested in those products and increases the pressure to buy them.</p>
<p><strong>Our tip:</strong> Resist the enticements to comment about the products on offer. If salespeople do <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14780887.2020.1725947">insinuate that you have shown an interest in their offerings</a> challenge their claims politely at first, but also be prepared to hang up the phone.</p>
<p>Nuisance callers have been around for a while and they’re probably not going away any time soon. But by becoming aware of their tricks we can sidestep sales caller’s “language traps’ and protect ourselves from scammers.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/139152/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Scammers are exploiting the Covid-19 pandemic along with the lack of clarity as to how the Track and Trace system works. Here’s what you need to know to stay safe.Bogdana Huma, Lecturer in Social Psychology, York St John UniversityElizabeth Stokoe, Professor of Social Interaction, Loughborough UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1132932019-04-03T10:48:07Z2019-04-03T10:48:07ZWant to understand accented speakers better? Practice, practice, practice<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267175/original/file-20190402-177199-1ccspqy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=232%2C481%2C4392%2C3360&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">If the goal is to communicate, why should the speaker bear all the burden?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/lp1AKIUV3yo">Mimi Thian/Unsplash</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Conversation is at the heart of people’s lives. We use language to communicate our hopes and dreams to our closest friends, to ask for help from colleagues at work and to describe our ailments to medical professionals. Typically this process of communication goes fairly smoothly.</p>
<p>But there are circumstances that can make communication even between two healthy adults more challenging – consider the native language background of the two participants. It’s commonly understood that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/002383099503800305">non-native speech is harder to understand</a> than native speech, and this challenge <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00963.x">can result in communication failures</a>.</p>
<p>As a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=wi_55KAAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra">linguist and cognitive scientist</a>, I’m interested in the half of the conversation equation that often gets overlooked: the native listener. Given that, worldwide, there are <a href="https://elt.oup.com/catalogue/items/global/linguistics/oxford_applied_linguistics/9780194421645">more non-native speakers of English</a> than native speakers, this is an especially interesting topic to consider here in the United States.</p>
<h2>What did you say?</h2>
<p>Communicative efficiency, or the time it takes to complete a task through conversation, is <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830910372495">delayed when speakers do not share</a> a language background.</p>
<p>There are several reasons why non-native speech is more challenging for a native listener to understand than speech from another native speaker. </p>
<p>Researchers know, for example, that listeners are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00612.x">better at understanding a familiar talker</a> than an unfamiliar talker, regardless of language background. It makes sense that people get to know the specific properties of those they interact with frequently and over time improve at understanding them.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267188/original/file-20190402-177196-w152hm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267188/original/file-20190402-177196-w152hm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267188/original/file-20190402-177196-w152hm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267188/original/file-20190402-177196-w152hm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267188/original/file-20190402-177196-w152hm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267188/original/file-20190402-177196-w152hm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267188/original/file-20190402-177196-w152hm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267188/original/file-20190402-177196-w152hm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A busy restaurant or a noisy cocktail party can make it hard to understand.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/VVI4CMdnwl0">diana/Unsplash</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It’s also clear that non-native speech deviates from native speech on a variety of dimensions, ranging from <a href="https://doi.org/10.1159/000487269">how single sounds are produced</a> to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4929622">speaking rate</a>. All of these acoustic qualities can make non-native speech more challenging for native listeners to understand. It’s similar to how other types of listening challenges can affect perception – think about the difficulties of listening to <a href="https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/dav/aaua/2000/00000086/00000001/art00016">speech at a noisy cocktail party</a>.</p>
<h2>Conversations have two participants</h2>
<p>Typically, in conversations between native and non-native speakers, the burden of success of the conversation is placed on the non-native speaker. But in conversation it takes two to tango. </p>
<p>Some studies suggest, in fact, that listeners are bringing more to the conversation you might assume. Yes, non-native speech is acoustically different than native speech, but a variety of other social factors can affect how non-native speech is understood.</p>
<p>For instance, expectations influence speech perception. Imagine hearing a word where part of the sound is covered up by some other noise – like “*ate” where the star represents a consonant sound covered up by the sound of a cough. You might have a challenging time figuring out what the word is. Is it gate? Date? Bait? Or something else all together?</p>
<p>But now, imagine you hear the same phrase in the sentence “Please check the latch on the *ate.” As a listener, you’d logically fill that in with a “g” to complete the word “gate.” However, if you hear the same acoustic signal in a sentence like “Please check the time and the *ate,” you’d be more likely to hear that sound as a “d” to fill in the word “date.” </p>
<p>In addition to linguistic expectations, social expectations also affect perception. That is, if you think the speaker is likely to be an accented speaker, your perception of the speech you hear may shift.</p>
<p>Using a technique called “matched-guise,” researchers play the same speech <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00973770">for listeners in two conditions</a> – one in which the speech is paired with a static image of an Asian face and another in which the speech is paired with a white face.</p>
<p>When the speech is paired with a Standard American English-accented voice, individuals perceive the speech to be more accented when paired with the Asian face than the white face, and listeners are less able to accurately transcribe what the speaker says. Interestingly, when the speech is Chinese-accented, listeners show a benefit when the speech is paired with an Asian face – that is, listeners are better at perception <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830914565191">when the accent and the face “match.”</a></p>
<p>Taken together, these results suggest that individuals use their social expectations when listening to non-native speech. Some recent studies have even demonstrated that a good predictor of how well listeners feel they perform on the task of transcribing non-native speech is their <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.01.006">attitudes toward non-native speakers</a>, rather than their actual transcription accuracy.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267208/original/file-20190402-177193-c66m6i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267208/original/file-20190402-177193-c66m6i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267208/original/file-20190402-177193-c66m6i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267208/original/file-20190402-177193-c66m6i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267208/original/file-20190402-177193-c66m6i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267208/original/file-20190402-177193-c66m6i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267208/original/file-20190402-177193-c66m6i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267208/original/file-20190402-177193-c66m6i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">International negotiations or interpersonal communications – both benefit from better comprehension of non-native speech.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/group-confident-politicians-taking-part-international-762746494">Pressmaster/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Beefing up your listening skills</h2>
<p>Since listeners bring so much of their own experience to the table during communication, I suggest it’s unfair to place the entire burden of communication on the non-native speaker. If that’s the case, what can the native listener do to improve communication outcomes?</p>
<p>The answer is easy: Practice!</p>
<p>Recent research suggests that native listeners <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.04.005">can improve their ability to understand</a> speech with relatively little exposure. In lab-based studies, listeners practice transcribing non-native speech. Individuals who partook in this practice improve their ability to understand a new accented talker as compared to listeners who did not.</p>
<p>This benefit exists <a href="https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4789864">within individual accents and across accents</a>, given sufficient exposure to a variety of talkers. If a native English listener spends some time listening to Mandarin- and French-accented English, not only will she get better at understanding speakers from China, France and Thailand, but the effect seems to extend to those from Guatamala, Korea and Russia. Researchers, including me, are still investigating the exact mechanisms that underlie this adaptation. Psycholinguists are also working on deriving other cognitive science-driven tools to help native and non-native listeners communicate more successfully.</p>
<p>The number of non-native speakers of English is <a href="https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2013/acs/acs-22/acs-22.pdf">growing in the United States</a>; at the same time, their proficiency in English is also growing every year. Rather than placing the burden solely on the individuals who are already working to learn a language, native listeners can share this challenge, and work to improve their own perceptual abilities.</p>
<p>A little practice can go a long way toward making communications smoother and more pleasant for all parties, and improved communicative efficiency can have implications for business and political negotiations in addition to everyday personal interactions.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/113293/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Melissa Michaud Baese-Berk receives funding from the National Science Foundation; all views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the NSF. </span></em></p>It can be hard to understand a non-native speaker of your own language. But conversation is a two-way street and linguists are figuring out how native listeners can improve their half of the interaction.Melissa Michaud Baese-Berk, Associate Professor of Linguistics, University of OregonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/998522018-07-19T18:50:45Z2018-07-19T18:50:45ZTechnology doesn’t have to be lonely: encouraging dialogue over diatribe<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/228163/original/file-20180718-142414-1k2bmwc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Almost four in 10 millennials spend more time on their smartphones than they do engaging with people in real life.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mavis Wong/The Conversation</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Do you ever feel like when you post to Facebook, you’re publishing into a void where nobody is listening? You’re not the only one. </p>
<p>A <a href="https://tendaily.com.au/shows/theproject/news/a180703vow/australians-are-experiencing-a-loneliness-crisis-20180703">recent study</a> reported that Australians are lonelier and more depressed due to technology – and it’s making us feel isolated.</p>
<p>But, while technology is at the heart of it, we believe it’s not technology itself that’s the problem, rather it’s how we use it. Technology can make us feel lonely if we use it as a publishing tool for monologues, rather than to interact with others through dialogue. </p>
<p>And that seems to be what we’re doing.</p>
<h2>Millenials love their smartphones</h2>
<p>According to a <a href="https://www.marketwatch.com/story/millennials-engage-with-their-smartphones-more-than-they-do-actual-humans-2016-06-21">study from 2016</a>, nearly four in ten millennials spend more time on their smartphones than they do engaging with people in real life. Millennials are defined here as the generation immediately following Generation X, with the first born in 1980.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-digitalisation-of-everything-is-making-us-more-lonely-90870">How the digitalisation of everything is making us more lonely</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Another <a href="http://millennialmoney.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/2015-Millennials-Come-of-Age.pdf">report from 2014</a> concluded that millennials account for 41% of the total time Americans spend using smartphones, despite making up just 29% of the population. </p>
<p>Indeed, according to <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/01/us-smartphone-use-in-2015/">data released in 2015</a> by the Pew Research Center, a nonprofit and nonpartisan think tank in Washington, D.C., more than half of the millenials interviewed said they couldn’t live without their smartphones.</p>
<h2>The problem with monologue</h2>
<p>So, what’s the problem with this type of technology? </p>
<p>Social media tends to encourage users to publish, “like” and forget, rather than engage in conversation. This is analogous to a conversation that progresses in a single direction: a <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/the-novel-perspective/201201/the-difference-between-monologue-and-dialogue">monologue</a>. </p>
<p>A monologue has only one “logic”. That means there is only one mode of <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/logic">reasoning</a>. A conversation with one logic does not present differing thoughts or arguments, rather it follows a single logical set of assertions that are assumed to be correct. </p>
<p>The word “monologue” is Greek, meaning to “<a href="https://www.etymonline.com/word/monologue">speak alone.</a>” An overabundance of monologue would necessarily lead to loneliness. Sites such as Snapchat, Twitter, Instagram and Facebook are designed to foster a <a href="https://www.hellosoutherly.com/snapchat-one-way-conversation-that-works/">one way conversation</a>, a monologue over dialogue.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/are-facebook-and-google-limiting-your-opinions-2375">Are Facebook and Google+ limiting your opinions?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>They may mimic a kind of conversation, but they are essentially still just a monologue with a chain reply. </p>
<p>Imagine for a moment a parent explaining something to a teenage son and getting “yeah”, “uhuh”, “ok” back in reply. What you’ve got there is a monologue with replies, but not a dialogue. </p>
<p>Much of social media is this type of monologue, even with comments, likes and thumbs ups in the mix. As we all become mini publishers, we are losing the interactivity that fosters meaningful and healthy social interaction. </p>
<h2>The positive proliferation of dialogue</h2>
<p>So, what’s the alternative to a monologue? A <a href="http://www.dictionary.com/browse/dialogue">dialogue</a>.</p>
<p>In contrast to the one-way conversation, a dialogue is an exchange of different thoughts, ideas and opinions to reach an agreement – or harmonious disagreement. It is two or more people sharing multiple logics in a conversational setting, just like in face-to-face communication. Dialogic conversations help people feel engaged with others.</p>
<p>While all dialogue is a conversation, not all conversation is a dialogue. Many of us have experienced conversing with an angry parent, where the parent is clearly in a monologue, speaking alone. </p>
<p>For a true dialogue, there needs to be two voices and two logics (hence “<em>dia</em>-logue”). On social media platforms, it’s easier to broadcast a single logic (your own) than it is to engage with a variety of different logics that might challenge your world view. And this hinders true dialogue. </p>
<h2>Encouraging more digital dialogue</h2>
<p>The lack of dialogue won’t be solved by damning technology, which will always be a part of our society. Instead, there are ways to reduce monologic interactions and increase dialogic interactions via technology, and thereby reduce loneliness and depression.</p>
<p>The first step is to realise which technologies foster monologue and why. </p>
<p>Platforms such as Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat are designed for people to broadcast their opinions. Because we are simply publishing, we are losing the interactivity that makes for meaningful and healthy social interaction. </p>
<p>People can create a dialogue on these platforms, but it’s difficult. Both people have to want to take part in a dialogue – and recognise they are taking part in a dialogue. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/does-skype-help-or-hinder-communication-21121">Does Skype help or hinder communication?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The second step is to realise which platforms are better designed to foster dialogue. </p>
<p>Texting, Skype, and Facebook groups and community pages foster dialogue, helping people develop human connections. For example, a group chat or Facebook community is designed for people to come together to discuss topics of shared interest.</p>
<p>Not everyone holds the same views – logics – but they discuss the topics with the goal of enhancing their knoweldge and ideas through the chat. </p>
<p>If you are feeling an unexplained increase in loneliness, it might be caused by an overuse of monologic platforms. You might consider reducing your use of these platforms in favour of platforms that foster dialogue. </p>
<h2>How to leave monologues behind</h2>
<p>Finally, it’s important to be aware of unintentionally transferring monologic conversations from monologic platforms, to dialogic platforms.</p>
<p>For example, by constantly sending short, emoticon filled texts that don’t elicit a response. Or repetitively “liking” things posted on Facebook, rather than starting a Messenger conversation with the poster. </p>
<p>It might take time to adjust to a transition from monologic to dialogic interactions, but you will likely feel happier and more fulfilled if you make the change.</p>
<p>Of course, technology shouldn’t replace all human interaction. Whenever you get a chance, you should put the phone down and talk to someone in person. But in lieu of a face-to-face chat, a digital dialogue can make us feel more connected to those around us.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/99852/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>As we all become mini publishers, we are losing the interactivity that fosters meaningful and healthy social interaction.Michael Cowling, Senior Lecturer in Educational Technology, CQUniversity AustraliaRobert Vanderburg, Academic and Lecturer , CQUniversity AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/749822018-01-03T20:16:06Z2018-01-03T20:16:06ZListen up! How to get your message across in just 60 seconds<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/199675/original/file-20171218-27595-1vmvbb7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Your minute is nearly up.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock/Mike Flippo</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Do you have something important to say, but find it hard to get people’s attention? </p>
<p>Or have you tried to listen to someone who claims to have something interesting to impart, but they can’t explain it and the idea gets lost? (Or worse, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Edx9D2yaOGs">you get bored</a> and lose interest, even if they’re trying to describe their revolutionary new laser shark).</p>
<p>Some people are natural communicators; others … aren’t.</p>
<p>It’s a problem many academics face, particularly with the push we’re all getting to explain our work to the public.</p>
<p>But there are a few tricks you can use that can help you to better communicate your ideas.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/pilot-study-on-why-academics-should-engage-with-others-in-the-community-76707">Pilot study on why academics should engage with others in the community</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>So what do you do?</h2>
<p>The old academic axiom of “<a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/publish-or-perish-23049">publish or perish</a>” – to get as many articles as possible published in peer-reviewed academic journals – has changed.</p>
<p>Academics are still expected to publish and share their work with the world, but now the emphasis is not just on publications in academic journals squirrelled behind paywalls. And rightly so – knowledge should be shared with all. </p>
<p>But the range of information available means that people have access to so many more ideas and opinions than before. This is both a blessing and a curse, as the amount of information can sometimes cause unnecessary confusion or contention. </p>
<p>With so much information out there, how can researchers effectively reach their intended audience? How can they engage them in meaningful dialogue?</p>
<h2>Done in 60 seconds</h2>
<p>There are a few simple steps that anyone can use to get a conversation happening in the right way.</p>
<p>Conversation is a key word. It means an exchange between two people – not a ten-minute monologue in response to the polite question of “so, what do you do?”</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/make-em-laugh-the-humorous-path-to-academic-success-39493">Make 'em laugh: the humorous path to academic success</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Imagine this. You have just met someone at a social gathering (work-related or not) and you have a feeling that they are someone you could benefit from getting to know better. You have 60 seconds to make the most of this chance.</p>
<p>What do you do?</p>
<p>Here are some suggested starting points. It doesn’t have to be perfect! Make do with what you have, wherever you are, distractions or otherwise (we filmed our attempt during some renovations on campus).</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_UYcBz6oEVA?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Just a minute!</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We’ve just taken 60 seconds to explore how you can best use your window of opportunity. Now it’s over to you to see what you can do.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/74982/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Merryn McKinnon has worked, and is currently working, on projects which receive funding from the Department of Education and Training; Department of Industry, Innovation and Science; Department of Health; National Health and Medical Research Council; NSW Ministry of Health; ACT Health; and the HCF Research Foundation. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Will J Grant receives funding from the Department of Industry and Science.</span></em></p>A few tips and tricks on how to make the best use of your one minute chance to get your message across.Merryn McKinnon, Lecturer, Australian National UniversityWill J Grant, Senior Lecturer, Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/840492017-09-21T00:54:55Z2017-09-21T00:54:55ZReview of historic stock routes may put rare stretches of native plants and animals at risk<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/186705/original/file-20170920-20014-1wts1nv.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The travelling stock routes are a precious national resource. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Since the 19th century, Australian drovers have moved their livestock along networks of stock routes. Often following traditional Indigenous pathways, these corridors and stepping-stones of remnant vegetation cross the heavily cleared wheat and sheep belt in central New South Wales. </p>
<p>The publicly owned <a href="https://www.nature.org.au/media/172026/6-the-tsr-network-heritage-habitat-and-livelihood-2011.pdf">Travelling Stock Reserve</a> network of New South Wales is now <a href="https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/ehq-production-australia/a86c93a1a5c5ad72f5d4e64c255beb2fe8d757f6/documents/attachments/000/054/281/original/NSW_TSR_Review_-_public_consultation_paper.pdf?1493168851">under government review</a>, which could see the ownership of much of this crown land move into private hands.</p>
<p>But in a study <a href="http://www.publish.csiro.au/BT/BT17114">published today in the Australian Journal of Botany</a> we suggest that privatising stock routes may endanger vital woodlands and put vulnerable species at risk. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-ancient-aboriginal-star-maps-have-shaped-australias-highway-network-55952">How ancient Aboriginal star maps have shaped Australia's highway network</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The review will establish how individual reserves are currently being used. Although originally established for graziers, the patches of bush in the network are now <a href="http://www.crownland.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/652492/Crown_lands_Management_Review_accessible.pdf">more likely to be used</a> for recreation, cultural tourism, biodiversity conservation, apiary and drought-relief grazing.</p>
<p>This shift away from simply moving livestock has put pressure on the government to seek “value” in the network. The review will consider proposals from individuals and organisations to buy or acquire long-term leases for particular reserves. </p>
<p>It is likely that most proposals to purchase travelling stock reserves would come from existing agricultural operations.</p>
<h2>A precious national resource</h2>
<p>Travelling stock reserves across New South Wales represent some of the most intact examples of <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicshowcommunity.pl?id=86&status=Endangered">now-endangered temperate grassy woodland ecosystems</a>.</p>
<p>Our research found that changing the status or use of these reserves could seriously impact these endangered woodlands. They criss-cross highly developed agricultural landscapes, which contain very limited amounts of remnant vegetation (areas where the bush is relatively untouched). Travelling stock reserves are therefore <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1442-8903.2010.00509.x/abstract">crucially important patches of habitat and resources for native plants and animals</a>.</p>
<p>This <a href="https://cdn.wilderness.org.au/archive/files/long-paddock-scientists-statement.pdf">isn’t the first time</a> a change in ownership of travelling stock reserves has been flagged. Over the last century, as modern transport meant the reserves were used less and less for traditional droving, pressure to release these areas for conventional agriculture has increased. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/186739/original/file-20170920-910-1hyie1r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/186739/original/file-20170920-910-1hyie1r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/186739/original/file-20170920-910-1hyie1r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/186739/original/file-20170920-910-1hyie1r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/186739/original/file-20170920-910-1hyie1r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/186739/original/file-20170920-910-1hyie1r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/186739/original/file-20170920-910-1hyie1r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/186739/original/file-20170920-910-1hyie1r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Historic stock routes are still used for grazing cattle.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Daniel Florance</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>To understand what a change in land tenure might mean to the conservation values of these woodlands, we spent five years monitoring vegetation in stock reserves in comparison to remnant woodlands on private farmland.</p>
<p>We found that travelling stock reserves contained a higher number of native plant species, more native shrubs, and less exotic plants than woodland remnants on private land. </p>
<p>The higher vegetation quality in travelling stock reserves was maintained over the five years, which included both the peak of Australia’s record-breaking <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/millennium-drought-22237">Millennium Drought</a> and the heavy rainfall that followed, referred to as the “<a href="https://theconversation.com/global/topics/floods-348">Big Wet</a>”.</p>
<p>The take-home message was that remnant woodland on public land was typically in better nick than in private hands.</p>
<p>Importantly, <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320712001449?via%3Dihub">other studies</a> have found that this high-quality vegetation is critical for many threatened and vulnerable native animals. For example, eastern yellow robins and black-chinned honeyeaters <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320709003140">occur more frequently</a> in places with more shrubs growing below the canopy.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/186738/original/file-20170920-961-1hr5im9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/186738/original/file-20170920-961-1hr5im9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/186738/original/file-20170920-961-1hr5im9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=371&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/186738/original/file-20170920-961-1hr5im9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=371&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/186738/original/file-20170920-961-1hr5im9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=371&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/186738/original/file-20170920-961-1hr5im9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=466&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/186738/original/file-20170920-961-1hr5im9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=466&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/186738/original/file-20170920-961-1hr5im9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=466&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The vulnerable superb parrot also uses travelling stock reserves for habitat.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Damian Michael</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The contrast we saw between woodlands in travelling stock reserves and private land reflects the different ways they’re typically managed. Travelling stock reserves have a history of periodic low-intensity grazing, mostly by cattle, with long rest periods. Woodland on active farms tend to be more intensively grazed, by sheep and cattle, often without any strategic rest periods.</p>
<h2>The stock reserves’ future</h2>
<p>The uncertain future of travelling stock reserves casts doubt on the state of biodiversity across New South Wales.</p>
<p>The current review of travelling stock reserves is considering each reserve in isolation. It flies in the face of the belief of <a href="https://cdn.wilderness.org.au/archive/files/long-paddock-scientists-statement.pdf">many managers, practitioners and researchers</a> that the true value of these reserves is in the integrity of the entire network – that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.</p>
<p>Travelling stock reserves protect threatened species, allow the movement of wildlife, are seed sources for habitat restoration efforts, and support the ecosystem of adjacent agricultural land. These benefits depend on the quality of the remnant vegetation, which is determined by the <a href="https://theconversation.com/can-livestock-grazing-benefit-biodiversity-10789">grazing regime</a> imposed by who owns and manages the land.</p>
<p>Of course, not all travelling stock reserves are in good condition. Some are subject to high-intensity livestock grazing (for example, under longer-term grazing leases) coupled with a lack of funding to manage and enhance natural values.</p>
<p>Changing the land tenure status of travelling stock reserves risks increasing grazing pressure, which our study suggests would reduce ecosystem quality and decrease their conservation value.</p>
<p>The travelling stock routes are important parts of our ecosystem, our national heritage, and our landscape. They can best be preserved by remaining as public land, so the entire network can be managed sustainably. </p>
<p>This requires adequate funding for the <a href="http://www.lls.nsw.gov.au/">Local Land Services</a>, so they can appropriately manage pest animals, weeds, erosion and illegal firewood harvesting and rubbish dumping.</p>
<p>Travelling stock reserves are more than just The Long Paddock – they are important public land, whose ecological value has been maintained under public control. They should continue to be managed for the public good.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/84049/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Luke S. O'Loughlin has received funding from the Hermon Slade Foundation and the Holsworth Wildlife Endowment Fund</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Damian Michael receives funding from the Australian Government (National Environmental Science Program) and the Murray Local Land Services</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Lindenmayer receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Government (National Environmental Science Program), the Ian Potter Foundation, the Vincent Fairfax Family Foundation, the Murray Local Land Services and the Riverina Local land Services</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Thea O'Loughlin received funding from the Murray Local Land Services.</span></em></p>Australia’s iconic stock routes are now public land, used for everything from conservation to recreation. A government review may change that.Luke S. O'Loughlin, Research fellow, Australian National UniversityDamian R. Michael, Ecologist, Australian National UniversityDavid Lindenmayer, Professor, The Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National UniversityThea O'Loughlin, Ecologist, Adjunct Researcher, Charles Sturt UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/672332016-12-02T03:46:28Z2016-12-02T03:46:28ZEveryone’s talking but no-one’s listening: it’s time to reclaim the art of communication<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/146704/original/image-20161121-30364-ufkeaj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">So much to say, but who's paying attention?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/jordesign/3619404268/">Flickr/jordan</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In a world of mass communication and social media, people seem prepared to share their opinion on almost any subject.</p>
<p>When it comes to remembering a conversation you were involved in, in most cases the deciding factor is the contribution you made to that conversation, according to British journalist <a href="https://catherineblyth.wordpress.com/about/">Catherine Blyth</a> in her 2008 advice book <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5955421-the-art-of-conversation">The Art of Conversation</a>.</p>
<p>But today when people talk, online and offline, any real dialogue seems to have given way to parallel monologues, paired with an inability to actively listen. </p>
<h2>Healthy advice</h2>
<p>A brief trip into my own discipline of health communication illustrates the dilemma. The core argument of what makes health promotion work is that the promoter must first find the barriers as to why people don’t live healthier. The promoter then converts those into convincing campaigns.</p>
<p>Yet, health promoters still have difficulties explaining why seemingly reasonable people still deliberately disregard or dismiss their messages. In Australia alone, the federal Department of Health says smoking still kills an <a href="http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/tobacco-kff">estimated 15,000 people</a> a year.</p>
<p>So, how do we explain that people wilfully choose to harm their future health by ignoring sound health marketing? Researchers call this phenomenon health resistance. It is basically a lack of motivation to comply with someone else’s ideas of good and bad.</p>
<p>And since every form of communication starts with someone’s own worldview, which has to pass through the filter of a possibly very different worldview of others, these rebellious reactions are not surprising. </p>
<p>In politics and social issues (debates of marriage equality, climate change, race and religion, etc), we witness an increasingly dire split and hardening of positions. But the attempt to focus on perfecting one’s own arguments has equally led to an impasse in advancing public health. </p>
<h2>Communication skills</h2>
<p>The study of communication has its origins in rhetoric and public speaking skills of the ancient Greeks and Romans. </p>
<p>Rhetoric teaches the art of using persuasive tools. However the idea of resolving disagreement through measured agreeable discussion, known as the dialectic method, played an equal role to the ancient Greeks and Romans. </p>
<p>With this in mind, it is interesting to see how our outlooks of communication have changed in modern times. Back in 1922, the American writer and reporter <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/Walter-Lippmann">Walter Lippmann</a> still called communication:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[…] a central and constitutive place in the study of social relations.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This opinion was echoed by his contemporary, philosopher <a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/dewey/">John Dewey</a>, who argued that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[…] communication can by itself create a community.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This early definition was close to the spirit of the dialectic method. It was also in line with the root of the word “communication”, which comes from the Latin <em>communicare</em> (to share or to make common) and <em>communis</em> (belonging to all). Both terms are also related to the word “community”.</p>
<h2>The rise of mass media</h2>
<p>The rise of electronic communication technologies and mass media after World War II shifted the focus onto a more scientific interest of how best to disseminate information. This was famously symbolised by the <a href="http://communicationtheory.org/shannon-and-weaver-model-of-communication/">communication loop model</a> of Claude Elwood Shannon and Warren Weaver.</p>
<p>A growing interest in the information processing capacity of communication ultimately led to a detachment from the art of debate. </p>
<p>Persuasion and media effects concepts moved centre stage. Those areas were especially useful for purposeful or strategic communication that were needed in political campaigning, marketing and public relations. Those fields, not coincidentally, grew in importance at the same time. </p>
<p>US communication scholar <a href="http://jms.sdsu.edu/index.php/faculty/eadie">William Eadie</a> noted that by the 1980s communication in the United States had been separated from the study of speech and rhetoric. It was more associated primarily with learning journalism and media production, while the latter became subcategories of English. </p>
<p>The dawn of the information age intensified the focus on creating messages further by providing people with unfiltered, instant access to media and removing communicators from real audiences. </p>
<p>Whereas the idea of the internet as a democratic source of information and active engagement was noble, the web algorithms that filtered what someone was exposed to along their interests created an echo chamber of one’s own held opinions. It effectively reduced communicative competency to engage in human dialogue. </p>
<p>If we look at the current public and political dialogue in many countries, it seems bleak. The fallout from the US presidential campaign and the UK’s Brexit vote are just two examples.</p>
<p>But we know from psychology that humans have a natural drive toward belonging and contribution (being heard) and finding expressions of their creativity (being inspired). This explains social movements, the fan culture in sports and participatory management.</p>
<h2>Getting the message through</h2>
<p>One way to arrive at practising a slower and more compassionate communication style is to borrow ideas from the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/futuretense/the-slow-movement/3023556">Slow Movement</a>. We can step away from instant responses and replace the idea of <a href="https://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_h_cohen_for_argument_s_sake">conversations as a competition,</a> with a win-win mentality. </p>
<p>The field of health communication attempts this in the form of community-involved and -led health campaigns, creating ownership, mutual voice and togetherness in the process. </p>
<p>On an individual level, we need to balance impersonal with personal communication, seek out and engage with opposing opinions on purpose, and try understanding the background for someone’s position by actively listening.</p>
<p>This goes beyond the freedom of speech idea. It forms an attempt to find common ground when talking to each other, which is not coincidentally also a definition of the term “community”. </p>
<p>Besides the obvious effects in building connections, it has direct health implications, working against isolation, antagonism and stress.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/67233/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Olaf Werder does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>We seem prepared to share our opinions on almost any subject today thanks to social media and other mass communication. But who is really listening?Olaf Werder, Lecturer in Health Communication, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/477752015-10-07T19:24:16Z2015-10-07T19:24:16ZFrom ‘Huh?’ to ‘Who?’: the universal utterances that keep us talking<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97386/original/image-20151006-29254-wjc8a3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Say again?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/viejozapato/2691485099/">Flickr/Demo</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>There’s more to our discovery that every language appears to have the word “<a href="http://huh.ideophone.org/">Huh</a>?”, or at least something that sounds very similar, that saw us pick up one of this year’s <a href="http://www.improbable.com/ig/">Ig Nobel Prizes</a> that celebrate some of the more unusual research.</p>
<p>“Huh?” has the same effect in every culture of getting the other person to back up and repeat or clarify what they just said, but there are other common features that emerge from our study of spoken languages.</p>
<p>The prize-winning paper, first <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0078273">published in the journal PLoS ONE</a> in 2013, was a careful comparison of words in a small sample of the world’s languages. While our sample included diverse languages from five continents, it is a smaller sample than people usually want in a modern linguistic study.</p>
<p>Some 7,000 languages are spoken in the world today and many modern studies that compare grammatical structures insist on a sample of 100 or more languages. But those studies about the structure of sentences or phrases use data that can be found in books in the library.</p>
<h2>The language of conversation</h2>
<p>If your question is about a feature of language that only occurs in the messy reality of conversation then you won’t find the answer in a grammar book.</p>
<p>To gather facts on how people fix problems in communication you have no choice but to go to the village (or equivalent) and collect recordings of everyday conversation, in all its messy glory.</p>
<p>In one group studying the ways in which people handle communication problems in conversation, we noticed that all of the very different languages we were working on – spoken in countries from Ecuador to Ghana to Laos to Indigenous Australia – had a word that sounded something like “Huh?"’, used when a person had not heard or understood what was just said.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nm_klOMto4o?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>We delved deeper into this question and set out to test whether our impression was correct. Colleagues donated recordings of people saying the "Huh?” word in ten different languages and we systematically compared their phonetic features, including the quality of the vowel used and the type of intonation.</p>
<p>We found that the words were surprisingly similar across these otherwise very different languages. Our conclusion: one of the vanishingly rare universal words turns out to be a sign of confusion, poor hearing or misunderstanding.</p>
<h2>Beyond ‘Huh?’</h2>
<p>While the “Huh?” study attracted a lot of media attention – and the Ig Noble Prize – it was actually just a by-product of a <a href="http://repair.ideophone.org/">much larger study</a>. The results of that larger study <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0136100">were published</a>, coincidentally, in the same week we received the Ig Nobel for the earlier paper.</p>
<p>In this larger study we also relied on large collections of video-recorded conversations that we collected ourselves during long-term field work in countries across the world.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97384/original/image-20151006-29220-vkzhwu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97384/original/image-20151006-29220-vkzhwu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97384/original/image-20151006-29220-vkzhwu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=321&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97384/original/image-20151006-29220-vkzhwu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=321&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97384/original/image-20151006-29220-vkzhwu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=321&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97384/original/image-20151006-29220-vkzhwu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97384/original/image-20151006-29220-vkzhwu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97384/original/image-20151006-29220-vkzhwu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Conversations collected from many countries across the world.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Nick Enfield</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Each researcher spent long periods, anywhere between months to years, collecting informal conversations in home and village settings, and painstakingly transcribing and translating what was said in those conversations. </p>
<p>With this body of data – 48 hours of running conversation in 12 different languages – the team of researchers was able to pinpoint the full range of strategies that people use for alerting others to problems in understanding what has been said or heard, and for getting them to fix or repair what was said in the conversation.</p>
<p>This is evidence for a language universal, a very rare thing. All languages have the same basic system for asking someone to <a href="http://repair.ideophone.org/">back up and repair</a> what they just said. The system performs a function that all languages need, and very often: it is used, on average in all the languages, once every 84 seconds.</p>
<p>The core elements of the system are present in all languages, consisting of three ways to trigger a repair sequence: the “Huh?” type, “Who?” type and “She did?” type.</p>
<p>These types work in the same ways in all the languages tested.</p>
<ul>
<li>“Huh?” tends to elicit a more wordy attempt to repair the problem (by fully repeating what you just said)</li>
<li>“Who?” and other question words tend to elicit a focused clarification such as a name</li>
<li>“She did?” tends to elicit a short and simple confirmation.</li>
</ul>
<p>We also found that there are universal principles governing the use of this system: when people ask others to back up and repair or clarify what they said, they are as specific and as economical as they can be. This shows evidence for a universal cooperative principle in conversation. </p>
<h2>A common tongue</h2>
<p>The findings suggest that the previous search for universals of human language has been looking in the wrong place: little research in comparative linguistics or cognitive science has been based on data from free-flowing conversation.</p>
<p>The usual focus has been on phrases and sentences, often devoid of context. The seemingly scrappy flow of conversation has sometimes been deemed either as irrelevant or too difficult to study.</p>
<p>Our work shows that these claims are both false. We hope that our work will draw attention to a change under way in the science of language. It is a shift from viewing language as a static system for representing logical relations to viewing it as a dynamic tool for managing social interaction.</p>
<p>While we have revelled in the fun side of winning an Ig Nobel, awarded for research that “makes people laugh and then think”, we sincerely hope that people are encouraged not just to smirk at the findings but to think about them too.</p>
<p>The system for repair of communication problems is a system unique to human language. Nothing like it is found in animal communication systems. This, we think, is because the repair system cannot operate without three quintessentially human factors.</p>
<p>The first is that human language is a communication system that allows us to consciously communicate about the communicative system itself. The second is that humans have a uniquely high degree of social intelligence, which we use for monitoring others’ intentions and understandings.</p>
<p>The third is that humans have unique cooperative and collaborative capacities, of a kind that make it possible for us to ask another person to back up and repeat or rephrase what they just said (and to assume that they will do it).</p>
<p>If there is a human language faculty, these are the kinds of things it is made of.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/47775/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nick Enfield receives funding from the European Research Council and the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at the University of Sydney. </span></em></p>The discovery that “Huh?” crops up in many languages may have won the researchers an Ig Nobel Prize. But they found much more than that in their search for the universals in language.Nick Enfield, Professor and Chair of Linguistics, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/19272011-06-21T21:00:26Z2011-06-21T21:00:26ZThe art of conversation<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/1777/original/PIC_-_Armstrong_art.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Copied From Nature by Victor Brauner (1903)</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Conversation is civilized speech. It is more purposeful than chatter; more humane than gossip; more intimate than debate. But it is an elusive ideal. </p>
<p>In our verbal exchanges we often flip from one topic to another – while conversation suggests something more sustained, more substantial. </p>
<p>A conversation is the encounter of two polished minds: tactful enough to listen, confident enough to express their true beliefs; subtle enough to search out the reasons behind the thoughts. </p>
<p>A conversation is a work of art with more than one creator. So, quite often, two or more people cannot rise to the level of conversation. They talk with one another. It may be cheerful, it may be polite, it may be a bit funny, it may be informative. But it lacks something crucial to conversation: the risk of seriousness. </p>
<p>Secretly we yearn for real conversation, because we long to encounter the best and most substantial versions of other people. We long for the truth of our selves to be grasped and liked by another person. </p>
<p>A classical conception of conversation takes convergence as its final – if distant – goal. When intelligent, reasonable and cultivated people disagree there is almost always some hidden confusion or failure of evidence that explains the lack of harmony. But with time and care these failings can be made good. Classical conversation is the mutual aid in the joint pursuit of the truth. </p>
<p>An interim benefit of such conversation is the light it sheds on what decent people really actually do disagree about. And more than that it illuminates the intimate why: the motives, fears, hopes, associations, key experiences, leaps of logic and quiet deductions – all of the things that add up to explaining why a serious person holds the view they do. </p>
<p>This is surprisingly rare. How often, really, do we appreciate why someone thinks as they do?</p>
<p>This is why true conversation is not quite like a debate. In a debate one feels that an argument has priority. In conversation it is the person that comes first. And though our traditions of law, science and scholarship, and even of politics, make a noble cause of putting the argument first, there is something they lose along the way.</p>
<p>In the end, all beliefs are the beliefs of individuals. This does not establish truth – for what is the case is the case whether anyone assents to it or not. </p>
<p>My point is the worth of a truth, the significance of an idea, the power of a belief, depends on the inner life of the person who holds it. And if we do not know about that inner life, we do not really know that idea. </p>
<p>But this is to move from the classical to a more romantic ideal of conversation. The finest talk with another person is the search for soul-companionship. </p>
<p>The most tender-ideal vision of conversation is given by Tolstoy’s hero Levin in a moment of great personal happiness: try to see what is precious to the person you are conversing with and you will discover that it is precious to you as well. </p>
<p>In a 1962 essay, the political philosopher, Oakshott, advanced a rather wonderful vision of an entire culture as a kind of conversation. And the vision gets its power from being – I think – a lovely distortion. It is not so much true to the facts as true to our hopes. It is how our culture might be, if it were improved.</p>
<p>As civilised human beings, we are inheritors, neither of an inquiry about ourselves and the world, not of an accumulated body of information but of a conversation, begun in the primeval forests and extended and made more articulate in the course of centuries. </p>
<p>It is a conversation which goes on both in public and within each of ourselves. Of course there is argument and inquiry and information, but wherever these are profitable they are to be recognised as passages in this conversation, and perhaps they are not the most captivating of the passages. </p>
<p>Conversation is not an enterprise designed to yield an extrinsic profit, a contest where a winner gets a prize, nor is it an activity of exegesis; it is an unrehearsed intellectual adventure. </p>
<p>Education, properly speaking, is an initiation into the skill and partnership of this conversation in which we learn to recognise the voices, to distinguish the proper occasions of utterance, and in which we acquire the intellectual and moral habits appropriate to conversation. And it is this conversation which, in the end, gives place and character to every human activity and utterance. </p>
<p>I think, though, that more weight should be given to the consequential benefits of good conversation. There are things worth loving other than intellectual adventure. </p>
<p>Still, taking inspiration form this grand utterance, perhaps there are many parts of this great conversation which need attention. </p>
<p>For years, I’ve been longing to get into a big, sustained conversation about art. I have heard, in my life, an embarrassing quantity of talk about art; I have heard (I should think) just about every possible point of view set forth and maintained with deep conviction. </p>
<p>I have heard every view disparaged. But I have, to be honest, heard hardly any conversation about art. That is conversation that tries to get to know an alternative point of view, that is curious to find the best expression of its own opinion – not just the most strident or most celebratory.</p>
<p>One of the most precious aspects of conversation is that it does not presuppose agreement. It presupposes civility and sincerity. Painfully often we preach to the choir. We advance our views in ways designed to make those who already agree with us cheer. Conversation has something of the missionary about it: it is interested in meeting the unbeliever, the sceptic, the doubter, the opponent. </p>
<p>So here’s my idea. I’d like to pursue the great conversation about art. And I’d like to start with the central question: how should we define art? Otherwise we won’t be sure what we are talking about. </p>
<p>The great conversation spreads out to embrace a wide range of issues: why is art important - if in fact it is? One what grounds, if any, can a work of art be correctly described as great? Who decides what counts as good art, and are they right people to do so. </p>
<p>Should the state subsidise art? If so, what modes of support are most effective? And these questions grow out of, and into, a million others – about exhibitions, galleries, favourite postcards. </p>
<p>But the point is not merely to spread out. The aim of great conversation is to organise, to connect, to unify – even, dare I say it, to simplify. </p>
<p>So speak to me. How should art be defined?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/1927/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Armstrong does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Conversation is civilized speech. It is more purposeful than chatter; more humane than gossip; more intimate than debate. But it is an elusive ideal. In our verbal exchanges we often flip from one topic…John Armstrong, Philosopher, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.