Notes on Conversation

~A Guide to Human Interaction

Phase 1: The Exchange of Vital & Non-Vital Information

Conversations which begin out of necessity will often open due to a need for information. These encounters are often preceded by a question, though it is important to watch a person’s behavior to assess whether there is any information they are attempting to currently obtain in the event that they do not ask (should you wish to engage them, and should assistance seem welcome). Once vital information has been conveyed, non-vital information should only be offered on request. An influx of non-vital information may be seen as a faux pas, or needlessly exhaust other participants, or impede the progression of the conversation to later phases, and should therefore be avoided.

Later in a conversation it is likely Phase 1 will recur as opinions diverge and need elaboration, or should more information become necessary for joint-activity. This doesn’t mean conversation is moving backward. Rather, it should be treated as a point of singularity as a single line of conversation meets an end where its further expression is impossible, and the baseline form of the conversation is returned to in order to provide completeness for later permutations of that same pattern. When in a conversation, always remember that you yourself can ask questions in order to reinitiate after a singularity of this kind.

Examples of information exchange are as follows:

·         “Excuse me, do you happen to know the time?”

·         “Has the doctor been out to see anyone yet?”

·         “What happened here?”

Phase 2: Observational Consensus

After introduction and information has been set aside, it is customary to assess the differences in perceptual vantage between the participants in the conversation. This is done for two reasons:

·         Firstly, to ensure that the participants are mentally sound, that there is no generative difference in their understanding of language or their physical senses. At this stage it may be necessary to concede to another’s senses in order to convince them of your sanity, should you wish to progress to Phase 3 or Phase 4. An improvisational attitude should be approached in this regard where it does not threaten disaster or discomfort, adopting a “Yes, and…” approach that accepts their version of reality and shows willingness to concede to it. Should this not be feasible, alternative observations should be made, though doing so can risk alienating the participant observers. In these cases the conversation should progress to Phase 5 or Phase 6.

·         Secondly, seeking observational consensus determines the particular value of the participants to one another. Those with little observational difference from each other are ‘allies’ who can be persuaded to work towards a mutual objective, and strengthening a bond to one another by way of Phase 3 and Phase 4 is a way to assure success when undertaking difficult tasks. Those offering a notably different perspective from one another are ‘enemies’ whose main use is to temper perspectives in order to reach objectivity. While these conversations are seen as much less comfortable, they are still to be valued as a means to negate misinformation and broaden awareness. ‘Enemy’ conversations take the route of Phases 5 and 6.

Achieving observational consensus can be so subtle as to appear bland, and is easily mistakable for ‘stating the obvious’ (missing the conversation’s transition from Phase 1 to Phase 2). Once a rapport has been established between participants, Phase 2 will likely be negated entirely in future conversations, but not as a firm rule. In later runs, Phase 2 can be used to determine a participant’s mood in order to direct the course of the conversation to the correct succeeding phase, and to reveal any particular biases that may be affecting their observations at that point in time.

Examples of forming Observational Consensus are as follows:

·         “It’s very nice weather we’re having, isn’t it?”

·         “It is so hot/cold today. I am going to wear less/more clothes now.”

·         “Have you seen what has been going on in the news?”

·         “Look at that animal. Is that animal not [insert observation here]?”

‘Allied’ Phases

Phase 3: Complimentary Trade

Should observational consensus be favorable (participant designated “Ally”), parties may then choose to engage in one of several acts of social grooming. The first of these is the exchange of compliments. Generally this action is suggested by the person who is in need of an alternate perspective to complement their own, due to having lowered self-esteem or a degree of uncertainty concerning their own observational utility. Because it is generally more desirable to get something for what you are giving than getting nothing for what you give, the engaging participant offers a complimentary perspective as tender, showing that they would value a similar compliment in return. This should be viewed as a signal to the converser that they have been identified as an ally and that they are expected to participate in the exchange if they wish to engage on that level. Compliments may go into some depth, such as when they enter discussion on a shared interest.

Here are some examples of complimentary trade:

·         “That sweater really suits you.”

·         “I really like that movie, too.”

·         “Wow, I wish I could do that.”

Alternatively someone may request a lopsided trade by engaging in dominance behavior. This can include self-deprecation, in which a person makes another person aware of an esteem deficiency and invites them to solve it through donating a compliment, or it can be acquired by demanding attention be drawn toward a target for complimentary perspective, forcing a converser to either agree with that perspective or reject the observational consensus. While less equal, these trades are far from uncommon. Dominance behavior is undertaken in conditions either where executive action is required or where it is necessary for one party to conserve their energy for specialized tasks. A willingly submissive participant needs to devote less attention to decision-making, but has less of a say in how their energy is utilized. A willfully dominant participant has to donate more energy to processing and control but has a greater say in how that energy is used. Because of this, dominance behavior can still be seen as an equal trade-off, but one concerning a much more complex currency than a simple complimentary exchange.

These are examples of submission:

·         “I’m sorry, I’m really no good at this. Can you help me?”

·         “I’m really feeling down today.”

·         “Really? Do you think so?”

Here are examples of domination:

·         “I just got a promotion!”

·         Don’t you think this looks great on me?”

·         “Guess what.”

Phase 4: Trust Exercises

Trust exercises are actions undertaken to deepen the relationship between allies. They can take the form of joint-input activities or, as strange as it may seem, exposure to intimate weaknesses.

Exposure to intimate weaknesses is a way to deepen dependency on another person by tying one’s wellbeing to someone else’s, and having them do so in return. In this way, the later betrayal of an alliance can have devastating consequences by creating an enemy with vastly more resources to wield against you than one who was otherwise unaware of particular flaws available for exploitation. Doing so as a matter of equal trade – weakening both parties only to one another – creates a powerful resistance to betrayal between them that encourages co-operation throughout the direst of circumstances, where those with less interdependency may be more inclined to act in their self-interest at another person’s expense. In other words, exposing others to one’s intimate weaknesses extends self-interest to the wellbeing of a social participant. While such an action is harmful if it occurs only one-way, a mutual trade ensures that both parties can rely upon one another under trying circumstances. It has the additional benefit of signaling to another person what kinds of emergencies may cause one to require their aid in future circumstances.

Obviously, there is a very strong temptation to fabricate weaknesses during these kinds of exchanges, so as to gain the confidence of another person while not having to weaken oneself in the event of a betrayal. It is for this reason that many people feign conditions, over-complain over mild ailments, and generally attempt to create a tragic backstory out of whatever likely material they can accumulate from their past – and why there is such prevalent skepticism concerning the outright exposure of intimate weaknesses. It is rare that the one fabricating these weaknesses would even see such actions as a deception, and these behaviors are likely self-deception, a consequence of only being able to deepen a sense of trust by deliberately creating an exploit within their own identity.

However these fabrications, whether intentional or otherwise, can be more harmful than simply telling the truth. If claims are increasingly found to be fraudulent, then the fraudulent participant is increasingly perceived as a threat that needs to be dealt with and actively ejected from one’s confidences (they are considered untrustworthy). The chances of discovering a fraud are relatively high considering two people who undertake such trust exercises are likely to develop a kind of co-operative dependency, and observe one another in conditions of actual weakness as a direct consequence.

When conversation extends beyond two people and one instance, this ‘exploit network’ becomes vastly more complicated. The source of the information is valuable, but so is the information itself. As such, one person may betray the confidence of one participant by exposing that participant’s weaknesses to a third participant (commonly called ‘gossiping’). Undiscovered, this provides not just one but two strengthened connections to the gossiper, who has proved to be both a trustee and a good source of information for the cost of exposing only one of their own exploits. If discovered, such a person is regarded as untrustworthy and is likely to be negated from all consideration of deliberate exchanges of intimate weaknesses. Their only avenues in this case (or this eventuality) are to trade with other gossipers for 3^rd party information or to move on to Phases 5 & 6.

Because of the skepticism that arises due to fabricated weaknesses, it is important not to expose a huge weakness too soon or without provocation without also being able to demonstratively prove it to be true.  Doing so undermines confidence in the veracity of that statement, and suggests to other participants that you are attempting to gain confidence without having earned it through exposing a legitimate weakness. It may also undermine confidence in one’s capacity as an asset to that individual, as when one exploit is shared too readily there are likely to be more and greater liabilities to follow. It is better to start with an exploit which is small, demonstrable, and manageable by oneself rather than through the assistance of others. If the participant agrees to the exchange by revealing one of their own flaws (immediately or at a later time) then it can be taken as a signal to move on to the next smallest, demonstrable weakness, and so on and so on. Specific kinds of activities (see below) may result in the earlier exposure of a weakness and a faster establishment of trust, but in most relationships trust deepens a little at a time as allies grow familiar with one another.

Examples of exposure to intimate weaknesses are as follows:

·         “I’ve never told anyone this before, but…”

·         “I totally didn’t see that coming.”

·         “I know, it’s just that x makes me really uncomfortable…”

Joint-input activities are actions which can be performed better with two or more participants, not just activities which can only be performed with two or more participants. This is an important distinction to make, as very often people will offer assistance in an activity where their participation is entirely unnecessary to that activity itself. The implication should not be that they believe you are incapable of acting alone, but that they believe acting together will be of mutual benefit in other situations which may require a deeper sense of trust and co-ordination, and that the necessary trust and co-ordination can be established in an activity where joint-input is unnecessary but still beneficial.

In these kinds of situations, an assertion of independence is not only a statement of the obvious but also an indication of unwillingness to operate alongside others in future, and may result in exclusion from such activities. Even should a task be easily achieved alone, the point is that doing it with others builds up a sense of trust.

The nature of the activity can be critical to the rate and nature of the trust invested between participants. A dangerous activity may inspire physical co-ordination between participants, whereas overcoming a tragedy may inspire emotional co-ordination. It is likely elements of both are required to establish a conventional sexual-romantic relationship. For such a relationship to remain exclusive, the activities have to be suitably bizarre as not to be shared or repeated socially, forming a kind of ‘language’ between the participants that cannot be entirely understood by anyone else, as its referents are bound up in observations only existing within those participants.

Examples of joint-input activities are:

·         Cleaning dishes

·         Getting arrested

·         Sex

These activities can arise in simple conversations as follows:

·         “You look cold, would you like to borrow my jacket?”

·         “I spy with my little eye…”

·         “Have you seen The x of x x? Let’s watch it together.”

In conclusion, trust exercises demand two things: deliberately exposing a vulnerability, and then working with someone else to overcome that vulnerability. ‘Dependency’ is often confused with co-operation, to the detriment of conversation and its aims. Trust can be built so long as one proves one’s willingness to be dependent. However continuous dependency of one participant on another inevitably sours a relationship as the dependee stops feeling that they are co-operating so much as operating on the behalf of the depender.

‘Enmity’ Phases

Phase 5: Argumentation

Arguments occur when participants observe different things, often through the same physical media. The simplest recourse of these arguments is to insist upon empirical awareness (‘open your eyes!’), either repeating certain exchanges of information, encouraging participants to observe from different vantages, or appealing to third parties to confirm the accuracy of sensory data. Any outright rejection of purely empirical information can be taken as an indication that a participant is physically incapable of observation or otherwise highly suspect in their mode of observation.

If basic empirical evidence can be agreed upon, then it is likely that the disagreement is over rational information which requires deduction to properly observe. The most successful way to go about this (without getting heavy into propositional logic) is to establish the participant’s premises. This means, rather than attacking their observations with your own, you ask them what empirical information led them to the conclusive observations they have made. Once you are aware of these, then you can agree with their version of the argument, or reject it in one of the following ways:

·         You can return to the task of establishing empirical truth by recourse to physical articles, either by directly establishing their observations as false or as merely limited in that they don’t consider the full scope of available data.

·         You can examine the structure of the argument in order to show that it is invalid. In this rarer case of argument, the information which is used to support it can be entirely true while still not leading to a true conclusion. For this to happen a person must usually be confused by an excessive or arbitrary arrangement of words which ‘sound’ correct but may contain double or triple negatives (or more), circular definitions with classes which contain themselves(All property is theft, all theft is property), and inefficient clarification over the distinction between operands (Either Hitler is a racist and a rogue or a charlatan, and he likes fudge, or he is a honest bigot who likes fudge.)

Needless to say, the realities of argumentation are not a problem easily solved. Two people by virtue of being in separate places at all times see different things at all times, and generally see more different things the greater the space and time between them. It is important to acknowledge this, and that argumentation is no-one’s fault so much as it is a result of physics. An ‘enemy’ stands to destroy everything you are by being proved correct in an argument, but it is important to understand that everything you are has little value if it is, in fact, wrong.

Conversations do not typically follow the rules of successful argumentation, so while it is possible to give good advice on what to do that doesn’t really explain what you are actually likely to see in an argument.

Firstly, participants are likely to perceive malcontent. This is to say that often participants will see each other as deliberately attempting to deceive one another in order to provoke a response which benefits them ahead of others. Much like skepticism in trust exercises (Phase 4), this is a defense against confidence tricksters who really would benefit greatly from someone believing in a falsehood.

In a similar way to gaining trust, it is wholly ineffective to declare something extraordinary true without being able to present demonstrable proof of it being so. It is far more effective – both in persuading and being persuaded – to find a small, demonstrable premise a participant is unfamiliar with and go about proving it. It is only after several smaller, certain changes in perception that an argument takes hold. Doing so requires a resistance to perceiving malcontent, assuring participants that you don’t want them to believe something unbelievable (deceive them) so much as have them perceive a number of clearly visible truths.

Secondly, arguments trigger impulsive enmity. This is closely tied to heuristic biases such as confirmation bias and the backfire effect which signal for people to dig in their heels and observe the world through the lens of everything they know to be true (even if it isn’t), and see it as a kind of foreign contaminant if it does not fit within that framework of reality. Impulsive enmity can manifest as anger (attacking people, verbally or physically), fear (denial or refusal to engage), or other emotions, depending on how an individual is wired. Few emotions are acknowledged as particularly useful when acting out a logical deconstruction of an argument. An awareness of one’s own impulsive enmity should be met with the need to step back. Emotions tend to cool when arguments are detached from the people presenting them, and considered at a dispassionate distance. Whenever possible, a conversation containing an argument should be prevented from becoming ‘heated’ by being broken off regularly. If done at a distance, this could mean writing a message and leaving it for a day or two before reading it again, editing and sending it later. In a face-to-face conversation it is more likely the argument will be dropped entirely and another subject from Phase 2 used to pass the time. This doesn’t resolve much, however. Should an argument be proceeded with face-to-face, it is more useful to couch it in terms of metaphor or a common interest which assures the participants of a shared intention of truth. Doing so requires some skill (more than I have), though appears very much to take the course of presenting premises as Phase 1 information prompted by clear differences in perception highlighted in Phase 2. Doing so can be disguised in the phrase,

·         “Oh my gosh, have you seen x? It’s such a good x.”

If they have seen x, which is usually a movie or television show, then it is possible to use it as an allegory for whatever point you were trying to make. If they have not, you can try again with a different ‘x’ or suspend the argument until such a time as they observe it as prompted.

Classic leads to argumentation are as follows:

·         “I disagree.”

·         “I beg to differ.”

·         “Not really, because…”

·         “That’s stupid.”

Phase 6: Value Testing

Value Testing encompasses a diverse set of behaviors which range from the strategic attack of a person’s sense of self-worth (specifically their ability to observe things and rely on those observations), to the more passive approach of establishing a clear understanding of the physical and strategic capabilities of conversational participants.

Attacks on self-worth (putdowns) are performed so as to reduce an enemy to a known quantity, and to weaken their position in preparation for an act of argumentation. Put-downs can be subtle, often as simple as boasting of one’s own accomplishments (the more obscure the field the better) and then indicating that it is the turn of another person to state their accomplishments within that same field. The more direct approach of outright criticism is obvious to most, but can be effective with a direct subordinate, useful as a means to keep them subordinate.

A putdown is an act which appears cruel so long as it is obvious and gradually more acceptable as it gains complexity. For example, it may be a putdown to point out to someone with no scientific knowledge that they have no scientific knowledge, even if their self-esteem is based on a false notion of having scientific knowledge. Undermining them from such a position ‘harms’ them in the sense of devaluing their esteem, but at the same time liberates them from the false notions which have led them to a wrong course of actions. If self-worth is over-inflated, it stands to reason that rupturing it gives a person a clearer sense of self. If a person’s self-worth is accurate and a putdown deceives that accuracy, then it stands to reason that it obscures the truth. As such, a put-down can be positively or negatively used given the context in which one is performed.

It is not true to say that a person always benefits from an enemy having the lowest esteem for their own faculty as possible. As far as conversation goes, it should be clear that while holding a conversation it is possible for a person to flit from phase to phase from subject to subject, being an ally, and enemy, or a basic encounter in the space of mere minutes. So fixing a person into the position of a permanent enemy and inflicting permanent harms to their rational faculty can be a decidedly bad idea. It is only once conversation is abandoned altogether as a means of engagement that enmity can become permanent, and deception tooled toward their destruction.

As such, put-downs serve best in opposition to Phase 3’s complimentary trade, as a legitimate swap of insults (vituperative or slight) that remind a person of the limits of their rational capacity. They are also easy to view through the same mode of dominating or submissive behavior:

A dominating put-down may appear in one of these forms:

·         “You have NO idea what you’re talking about.”

·         “Yeah, I just upgraded to an NG174 with 56 xeraquad depolarization. What are you using?”

·         “If you want to improve, you should really look at doing x.”

A submissive put-down may occur in one of these forms:

·         “What do you think about x (x being a likely unknown element)

·         “You have a really unique style!”

·         “I’ve never really understood x, maybe you could explain it to me.”

This behavior has the same intention of establishing directive authority, typically by undermining or testing someone in order to bring about a clearer hierarchy of expertise.

***

These preliminary Notes on Conversation serve as a basis for a number of the more fundamental behaviors likely to be identified in the course of a human encounter. Undoubtedly, a great deal of the confusion of social interaction comes from the fact that these techniques are culturally embedded in those who use them, and are unlikely to be performed with any explicit awareness of the reason behind them (the end goal is known, the path to it followed purely by intuition). It is likely that there are many more phases and permutations which remain to be discovered on this subject.