September 11, 2025 • 49 mins
It’s an understated miracle that humans can get across ideas to one another by saying things out loud. We’re strangely good at not constantly talking over each other, interrupting one another, and correcting misunderstandings. All just by conversing!
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Welcome to stuff you should know, a production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
Hey, and welcome to the podcast. I'm Josh, and there's Chuck.
I'm Chucky already.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
You know, you know I thought a moose apropos.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Oh it's my turn to talk. Yeah, oh, well played.
I'm not very good at this. As you know, if
you have ever listened to the podcast, and I know
you have because you're one of the co hosts, you
know that I step on you a lot. Now, yep,
I'll keep going with my turn constructional unit. Then how
(00:46):
confused are people? Do you think right now?
Speaker 1 (00:49):
I don't know, probably very I mean we should say
this is all just a bit to sort of demonstrate
a conversational analysis. Yeah, well thatword demonst the analysis. If
someone was sitting in another room making notes about how
we were talking like a creep, Yeah, that would be
a conversational analysis. We were just demonstrating poor communication pretty much.
Speaker 2 (01:13):
But it would be a bonanza for a conversation analyst
a CAA as they like to call themselves. This is
a super super niche field of science. I guess it
would be a social science because it branched off from sociology,
but one of the things that I've noticed about it
is that people like to try to push it into
(01:34):
a typical social science, right, like come up with some
theories like why do people do these things that you
guys are studying, and conversation analysis says, no, we're not
going to do that. Instead, we are purely about observation,
noticing patterns and then figuring out how those patterns predict
other patterns, and how all these different patterns fit together
(01:55):
in this grand way to make up conversation. And you
might say, well, that's pretty boring, wouldn't you, Chuck.
Speaker 1 (02:04):
I mean, I'll let you finish and then I'll give
you my take.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
Okay, you might say it's pretty boring if you were Chuck.
The reason why it's interesting is because it reveals something
about us that conversation is one of those things that
we're really really good at without realizing what we're doing.
That conversation is an amazing interaction between two or more
people that gets stuff done, that shares information that you
(02:29):
can make a case basically our entire human civilization is
based on the fact that we're able to converse pretty
much effortlessly, even though in a lot of times it
just does not make sense.
Speaker 1 (02:40):
Yeah, my deal with this is I'll get to this
episode and then I want to wipe it from my
memory bank because I'm one of those people that the
last thing I want to think about is how I'm
conversing with somebody. And it reminds me that that scene
in Better Off Dead, when early on John Cusack is
(03:02):
having like his early A flashback, I think to his
first meeting with his girlfriend and whether they're in his
head and he's like, Oh, she just touched her nose.
Does that mean I have something on my face? And
then she's like, oh, he just touched his face, Do
I mustard on my face or something like that? And
then before you know it, they're just going crazy. And
that's kind of what this does to me, is I
(03:22):
don't want to think about Like I'm very much organic
when it comes to stuff like this, and the last
thing I want to think about is did I say
that right? Or did I interrupt somebody? Or was I
did I act interested enough? Like that kind of thing?
Just I have no place for that in my life.
Speaker 2 (03:40):
That's funny because that is almost one hundred percent of
what goes on in my mind when I'm talking or
when someone else is talking like, I can't help but
do that.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
I know, and I know that, and I feel for
you for that because that can't be fun.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
It's really tiring. So Okay, this is like potentially a
career ending raphic pick that I made.
Speaker 1 (04:05):
Hunt no, no, no, no, no. I just you know, it's interesting,
and then I just don't want to ever think about it.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
Okay, we'll do a good job doing that, and I'm
sorry for even picking it. Well, let's dive into all
of this because it is interesting in and of itself,
even though it is a really strange discipline in the
way that it's set up.
Speaker 1 (04:21):
Yeah, it draws from a couple of fields. Primarily Libya
helped us with this one, and I can tell because
it's awesome. Ethn No methodology, and that is it's studying
how people not just how they make sense of the world,
but how they do it in relation to others and
how they collaborate with others.
Speaker 2 (04:40):
Right.
Speaker 1 (04:41):
And then socio linguistics, which is language but not just language,
language specifically with like how it relates in specific cultures,
in the context of different cultures. And there were three
key players and researchers doing this in the nineteen seventies,
mainly Yeah, at UCLA go bruins. The persone is a
(05:04):
sociologist named Harvey Sachs, and he seems to have kind
of been the ringleader here. He's the grand Pappy of
conversation analysis. He started at UCLA in the sixties, that
really got into this in the mid seventies.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
Yeah, and he stopped in the seventies because the poor
guy died in a car crash at forty years old
in nineteen seventy five. And he really only worked on
this for just over a decade, but he figured it out.
He laid this down, and part of it was that
he benefited from working closely with some other sociologists, including
Irvin Goffman, who was the star of our impression Management episode.
(05:43):
And I think that might have been where I first
heard of conversation in alliance. And then so he was
working with IRVN. Goffman. They weren't doing the same thing,
but they were both coming from that same strain of sociology,
which is it was really transitional at a time from
studying huge institutions like religion or government and zooming into
(06:04):
a much more granular, almost micro interaction level. So that's
what Goffman was into with impression management. Harvey Sachs was
into that with conversation.
Speaker 1 (06:13):
Yeah, he didn't publish a lot of stuff. This wasn't
like white paper, peer reviewed kind of stuff. That was
mainly like, you know, sort of pre ted talk kind
of thing like, Hey, isn't this interesting. Here's my lectures.
I'm going to make them available. You can take a
gander if you want. Right then, there was a student
of SAS named Gail Jefferson there at ECLA who was
(06:34):
a dance major but had this interesting job. She worked
as a typist for the Department of Public Health, and
part of that included transcribing sensitivity training sessions with prison guards,
and so she got really interested in a very kind
of key part of conversation with something called turntaking, when
you you know, take turns talking and a lot of
(06:55):
this will be about like the cues that people give
to let the other person know, hey, now it's your
turn to speak, or how to interject constructively or interrupt constructively,
things like that. But that seemed to kind of fascinate
her when she was transcribing these training sessions with the
prison guards, and so she got interested in that. She
(07:16):
ended up developing a whole system called the Jefferson transcription System,
which you're going to talk about a little bit, basically,
how to kind of make sense of all this stuff
when you're writing down how people are speaking to one
another and then later on it's kind of interesting. I
think she worked with laughter. She was fascinated by laughter
(07:37):
and how that works us way into a conversation and
how someone may cue someone to laugh at something they've
even said themselves by giving a small laugh after they've
said that thing.
Speaker 2 (07:48):
Yeah. The third guy is Emmanual Sheglof, and he seems
to have kind of taken the reins after Harvey Sachs
passed away, that's my stake. He became the chair of
the Conversation Analysis Department at UCLA, which seems to be
the center of conversation analysis from what I can tell.
(08:10):
He also received a Lifetime Achievement Award from the American
Sociological Association in twenty ten. So he was a big
man on campus essentially.
Speaker 1 (08:19):
Yeah, he was a big brewin on campus. But he
they kind of started out and got, you know, with
kind of the simpler side of things, which is like, hey,
let's look at telephone calls and just sort of everyday
interactions with people, like what do people say at the
beginning of a phone call? What do people say at
the end of a phone call? And this is sort
(08:40):
of the bird's eye view of like just very basic
interactions before they got more specific with their observations, I guess.
Speaker 2 (08:49):
Yeah. But also one of the genius things about studying
phone calls is how do two people who aren't looking
at each other know when it's their turn to talk?
And they don't just exactly and they don't just sit
there and talk over one another constantly and it's just
one big jumbled mass. That's what I was talking about earlier.
We're really good at conversation. We don't even realize it. Yeah,
(09:10):
but one of the first things you have to do
then is not just record the phone call. You have
to transcribe it. And that's what Gail Jefferson came up with,
was that method of transcribing that it's pretty clever. If
you know what you're looking at. You can get a
lot of information from this transcription if it's used the
Jefferson method.
Speaker 1 (09:29):
Yeah, and this was like, you know, this came around
the early seventies. This is when linguist Gnome Chomsky was
kind of out there in the public sphere with his
idea that there's a universal grammar and this doesn't you know,
this didn't set out to disprove that or anything like that.
It was really more of let's look at different cultures
and dynamics within a conversation. Because Chomsky, and you know
(09:52):
some of his cohorts, was like, you know, conversations are
just you can't analyze this kind of stuff stmatically. The
conversations are too irregular and too different between people. And
they were like, nah, I think we can actually come
up with some principles that are consistent enough to do it.
And I think they did totally.
Speaker 2 (10:11):
And one of the first projects that they started, one
of Harvey Sach's first projects was he worked with a
psychiatric hospital, an emergency psychiatric hospital. So their work's pretty urgent,
you can imagine. And one of the things that they
wanted to figure out was how to get patients to
give them their name when they called in, because there
(10:33):
was a certain amount of reluctance, as you can imagine,
especially back in the mid to late sixties.
Speaker 1 (10:38):
Yeah, they found out when a call was answered at
one of these places, they would say, if they said
just hello, the person might just say hello. But if
they said, well, hi, this is doctor Charles Bryant. What
can I do for you today? May I help you?
The people were much more inclined to then respond by saying, oh, well,
(10:58):
this is also Charles, and I'm calling because I'm having
some intrusive thoughts or something like that.
Speaker 2 (11:05):
Right, And then the receptionists would go, ah, I got you,
I got your name, we know your name now.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
Yeah. Sometimes they found that people would not respond in
kind with their name, and in those cases, it's pretty
interesting and this, you know, kind of provided another little
nugget of information for how these things go. Yeah, when
they did not say, oh, yeah, my name's Chuck and
I'm having, you know, intrusive thoughts, they would sort of
introduce like an like a disruptor. They would say something
(11:35):
like huh or what and just a small little bump
in the road to change the conversational flow, right, subtly
kind of saying like I don't want to give you
my name without saying I don't want to give you
my name.
Speaker 2 (11:46):
Right, Because what they found, conversation analysts found was that
we follow set patterns, these kind of prescribed rhythms of conversations.
So if you interrupt this the flow of one type
of conversation would say a huh, a new set of
rules comes up that takes the conversation from there that
(12:08):
both people are aware of but don't realize they're aware of,
which to me, I hadn't thought about it. But if
you've ever said huh to somebody when you knew full
well what they had just said, you were just reflexively
trying to derail or disrupt that type of script in
favor of a different one. Never realized that before, but
it makes sense.
Speaker 1 (12:27):
Or maybe by time even, but it's just some sort
of a disruptor to divert something for some reason. Sacks
identified another thing called composits, and they're phrases that are
kind of combined as a unit, and it usually is
a prompt for some kind of response, Like if someone
says may I help you like that on the telephone,
(12:49):
what they're then obviously is asking you for a response.
They'll let you know what's going on, and in the
case of like an emergency call center, they might literally
respond to may I help you by saying I don't know.
And what they found was is it wasn't like like
that was a reasonable response, like somebody might literally say like,
I don't know if you can help me, and it
(13:09):
needed to be sort of taking a face value like.
Speaker 2 (13:11):
That, right. What that suggested that Sex discovered was that
there were these composites where if you're saying, man, I
help you, you don't mean it at face value. It's
a part of a I think what would be called
later an adjacent pair, where you prompt, you say something
that's a prompt and there's an expected like range of
(13:33):
responses to it, and anything outside of that is like Okay,
that makes sense on paper, but it doesn't make sense conversationally.
And he kind of supported this with the idea he
wrote in a nineteen seventy five paper that everybody has
to lie yeah, And he used the example of like
a greeting among people meeting on the street, where you say, like,
(13:56):
how are you doing, and if the person says anything
other than fine or great or good, they have just
violated this type of composite prompt. You're not supposed to
say anything else. And even more interesting than this, chuck
is that they seem to have found that this is
actually universal. It's not just like among Americans or English
(14:17):
speakers or Germans or anything like that. Everybody essentially does
not want to know how you're actually doing.
Speaker 1 (14:24):
Yeah, And I found that that's a very good indicator
of closeness and how you know that you've developed a
true like closeness with someone else, like a friendship or whatever,
because that's much more of a formal thing. Even if
you know somebody but don't know them that well, you'll
say oh, like yeah, yeah, I'm doing fine. They're like, oh,
pretty good. But if it's somebody you really know when
(14:44):
you're close to, you don't have to lie. You can
very easily say I'm super tired or I'm not doing
great because xyz.
Speaker 2 (14:53):
Yeah. If you find somebody who actually does want to
know how you're doing, you hang on to that.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
Person, right. Or if you meet someone up blue and
say how you doing and they start in with the truth,
then just walk.
Speaker 2 (15:03):
Away, right, maybe even jog away.
Speaker 1 (15:06):
Yeah, red flag.
Speaker 2 (15:08):
Uh So. One of the other big breakthroughs was came
along when you could rent VCRs and they had giant
recording equipment like the kind they used in poultry Geist.
That changed conversation analysis, where now all of a sudden
you could see all the stuff that goes along with it.
It wasn't just telephone calls from disembodied voices. You could
(15:29):
see how people interacted and it opened up this whole
new world for sure.
Speaker 1 (15:34):
Should we take a break?
Speaker 2 (15:35):
I knew you were gonna say that.
Speaker 1 (15:38):
All right, we'll be right back.
Speaker 2 (15:39):
Stucks, It sucks, you know it stucks. It's a great name.
Speaker 1 (15:46):
Yeah, that's the name of it.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
It's a great name. All right, Stucks met.
Speaker 1 (15:51):
With an X. You know, before we broke you talked
about the huge cameras, and I'm reading Matthew Modine's diary
(16:11):
of making a Full Metal Jacket, you know, the actor
of Matthew Modine.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
Of course I know exactly what you're talking about. But
number one, I can't believe there is such a thing.
In number two, I can't believe you're reading it.
Speaker 1 (16:22):
Oh, it's great. It's his diary when he was making
the movie. Casey actually got it for me when we
were doing movie Crushes. Very sweet gift. But he at
one point he was talking about having to put yourself
on tape for an audition, which is something routinely done
all the time now, especially since the writer strikes and
COVID and stuff. But he was like, it's just such
(16:43):
a pain. You got to know somebody who has one
of those huge video cameras and you have to go
to their studio and blah blah blah.
Speaker 2 (16:49):
It was just like it was very cute and quaint Yep,
my niece Mila has to do that a lot.
Speaker 1 (16:53):
Yeah, Yeah, it's it's super It's kind of the way
it's done now.
Speaker 2 (16:56):
For sure, sure, but yeah, I imagine it's it's I
don't know which would be worse doing it live in
front of people, are doing it in front of a
recording that you're getting zero feedback from.
Speaker 1 (17:07):
The Every actor I knows hates putting themselves on tape.
They would much rather be in the.
Speaker 2 (17:12):
Room, gotcha, because they're all energy vampires, right exactly. So
one of the things I kind of alluded to earlier
is that conversation analysis is not a standard social science,
and that it doesn't develop theories of why people are
doing these things or why you said this when somebody
else said that. Again, they're just looking for patterns. They're
(17:33):
looking at its structure. And the cool thing about it
is that that doesn't mean that they're not deriving any meaning.
They're not postulating what it means. Like for example, they're
not going up to two listeners or two speakers and
they go to speaker number two and say, what do
you think speaker number one meant when they said how
are you doing? They just analyze the conversation, and based
(17:56):
on speaker two's response, that tells the conversation analysts what
speaker number two thought speaker number one was saying. So
just by examining it they can come up with meaning
or derive meaning from it. And again, it's just not
like other social sciences, and it seems to really stick
in the craw of everybody else. I love it.
Speaker 1 (18:17):
Yeah, they also didn't want to They wanted to be
as organic as possible and just have people have naturally
natural conversations with each other rather than orchestrating some big
like scenarios. You do have to just because of scientific
ethics and stuff, you have to tell people they're being recorded,
so you can't truly be just a fly on the wall.
But they did find that just the introduction of a
(18:41):
recording device they didn't feel like and I think they've
shown through evidence that it didn't really significantly change things
enough to where the result was thrown out or whatever.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
Right, right, And like we said that, when you are
beginning a conversation analysis, you start with a recording of
a conversation. Nowadays it's with videotapes, and then you transcribe it.
And one of the big things in conversation analysis is
when you transcribe it, you need to do it as
(19:11):
objectively as possible. You need to keep out your own
subjective thoughts about who did what and just faithfully say
this was an interruption, this was a TCU. This person
took a break breath in the middle of their word.
Josh just said he corrected himself in the middle of
the sentence. So he just used the repair and notate
(19:33):
all this stuff without any subjective input from you, and
then you go back and you analyze it after it's
been fully transcribed.
Speaker 1 (19:42):
Yeah, and so you've been very cleverly, i might say,
subtly dropping in little little words here and there that
people are like, what's he talking about with this stuff?
That's the stuff that they're looking for, and that's the
stuff that they named, like things that like in common parlance,
we know some of these things like rejoinders and interruptions
(20:03):
and things like that. But you know they're analysts, so
they took it a step further. And here are some
of those right now. One of them is called a
turn constructional unit TCU obviously not Texas Christian University.
Speaker 2 (20:17):
There are frogs, horn toads, horn frogs. I think something
like that, Yeah, chief and tree frogs.
Speaker 1 (20:23):
I think that's it. But turn construction units are the
building blocks of any conversation, of every conversation. And it
can be just a gesture like a nod at somebody,
it can be multiple sentences, but they end up with
what's called a transition relevance place a TRP, and that
is a moment where like what you've said has ended
(20:46):
and someone else may have a turn to speak now,
or you may say something else after that, and that's
just you taking another turn, basically and having two turn
constructional units in a row.
Speaker 2 (21:01):
And so what just right after you said in a row,
that's where the transition relevance place was. That was it
because it gave me a chance to start talking, and
everything you said leading up to it was the turn
constructional unit. That was your turn. You took your turn
in the conversation. There was a pause that allowed me
to start taking my turn, And that's the basic building
(21:23):
blocks of the conversation.
Speaker 1 (21:25):
That's right, Okay, see, you're good at this.
Speaker 2 (21:28):
There's also when I analyze it, sure, there's also like
a lot of different I guess rules or exceptions or whatever.
Like you could say, you could use two turns in
a row without really allowing for a transition relevance, place
that pause that allows the other speaker to start. For example,
(21:49):
you could say, are you hungry? I could go for
a burger. You actually just took two turns like a
big fat hog without any pause in the middle. And
yet that's not considered like any sort of violation of conversation.
It's just again, it's like an exception. It's a way
that we've kind of we're so good at conversation, we
(22:09):
can show off by taking two turns in a row
and not mess up the flow of conversation.
Speaker 1 (22:14):
Yeah, exactly if it's and we have to point out
too that a lot of times they were looking at
conversations between just two people, but you can also analyze
conversations in groups. It's just sort of a different beast.
But in conversations with more than two people at that
transition relevance place where it's probably someone else's turn to talk.
Like if you're a group of people at a dinner
(22:36):
party and you're telling a story, it's very common to
finish up the story and not just stare blankly into space.
But you finish up the story and maybe look at
one particular person, and there may be a reason for that.
Maybe it's your person, or maybe it's the person you
originally sort of started this story in reference to what
this other person was saying, so you'll kind of turn
it back to them. But you know, that's one way
(22:58):
you can sort of indicate like, hey, now I'm looking
at you, and that they may not speak at that point.
It may, you know, someone else may jump in. It
just sort of depends, right.
Speaker 2 (23:07):
You could also make a finger gun and go at
that person and they and they'll take over. One of
the things. I laughed a minute ago when you talked
about staring blankly at the ceiling. It's so silly when
you when you just you just take out like a
proper response and put in something else. It just makes
me laugh every time because it's so prescribed like this
(23:29):
these scripts are so prescribed that doing anything other than
that is is just absurd and hilarious.
Speaker 1 (23:36):
Yeah, I mean, it's it's like hidden camera material.
Speaker 2 (23:39):
You know. So I mentioned I think I corrected myself.
Actually it's considered an interruption when I misspoke and said
breath weirdly and then set it again correctly right after
I actually interrupted myself, and I referred to that as
a repair mechanism. Yeah, that's exactly what it is, because
(23:59):
one of the unsung parts of human interaction and conversation
is that we have to have ways of correcting and
adjusting misunderstandings. If we didn't, we would be able to converse,
but two people would walk away from the conversation potentially
with totally different understandings of the information that was just exchanged. Right,
(24:22):
So we have to be able to correct ourselves when
we know we made a mistake, and then also conversely,
we need to be able to ask for clarification if
we didn't understand what the person was saying.
Speaker 1 (24:34):
Yeah, or someone else may ask for that clarification or
something like that. So the repair doesn't have to come.
It's not necessarily a self repair always.
Speaker 2 (24:42):
Right, But it doesn't mean like going to the person
and being like, I'm really sorry, and I'm not going
to do this anymore, and here's how we're going to
do it better from this point forward. Not that kind
of repair.
Speaker 1 (24:52):
There are also gaps something to identify when they're analyzing conversations,
and we all know what that is that I believe
I always call them, and friends have called them awkward
pauses when it's not clear who the next speaker gonna
is going to be, and that can happen, like you
know you can, and even with groups of close friends
in a very social situation. In fact, I feel like
(25:13):
that's when it's most sort of noticeable, is when like
you're at a dinner party in something, and everyone's laughing
and saying things, and then everyone just draws a blank
for a couple of beats. Sure, and then someone will
usually say like awkward pause or something like that and
not say like that's a technically it's a conversation gap.
Speaker 2 (25:31):
That's I think a good a good replacement now because
awkward pause is so used up to just be like
conversation gap, so it can be uncomfortable when it happens naturally,
naturally like that, like every everybody's just kind of run
out of things to say about whatever that conversation was.
It's even more uncomfortable when somebody misses their turn to speak, right,
(25:54):
they don't clearly yes, well, they don't give any sort
of response right. That is, that can cause a gap,
and a lot of times you can signal that by
like repeating the question you just asked, saying the punchline
one more time, saying something like what do you think
(26:14):
about that? A prompting thing, And then there's also nonverbal
ways of signaling gaps, like putting both hands in the
air and going into a forward lunch.
Speaker 1 (26:25):
Right. I've always found that if the joke doesn't go,
we're just merely repeating the punchline again, always.
Speaker 2 (26:29):
Works exactly over and over and over again.
Speaker 1 (26:33):
You may not have heard me adjacent sea pairs. I
think you might have mentioned that, But that's when when
a specific kind of response is expected, so like how's
it going, Hey, I'm doing pretty good. They're also a
lot of times referred to as pre sequences, so just
sort of like it's sort of like a pad answer almost.
Speaker 2 (26:54):
Yeah, like come in, won't you thank you? That'd be invitation, acceptance,
greeting greeting question answer. There's actually a lot of those
that those are the ones that are maybe even silliest
when you replace it. Like if somebody says would you
like a slice of cake? And you go hello, Right,
it doesn't work.
Speaker 1 (27:15):
Well, what if you went hello, exactly.
Speaker 2 (27:18):
I was gonna say the same thing. Like, we've figured
out ways around that. You can massage the rules and
get even more creative with the whole thing. That you
could use something that's totally inappropriate and make it appropriate.
The best thing about something that funny is explaining it
to death.
Speaker 1 (27:34):
All right, here you ask me for cake one more time?
I got one more?
Speaker 2 (27:37):
Okay, would you like a slice of cake?
Speaker 1 (27:40):
Cok yourself?
Speaker 2 (27:43):
That works. It kind of works to an extent for sure.
Speaker 1 (27:47):
Stories is another one. When you mentioned the staring into
space at the end of like a question to you,
that can also happen at the end of a story
if you don't know what you're doing as a as
a communicator, when you start a story, you a lot
of time give an indicator that you know that it's
going to be you for a minute or two by
saying something like didn't I ever tell you about or
(28:09):
something like that, or get a sort of interest, Yeah,
get a load of this, or I'll tell you what
happened to me, And then you start your sort of story,
and usually you will end it by kind of looking
in someone's direction. And that's when you should sort of
acknowledge by either saying like, oh man, that's so funny
or just something like that, and not just stare blankly
back at somebody.
Speaker 2 (28:29):
So I have I'm guilty of doing that, especially before
I started treating my ADHD. My mind would wander very
easily when somebody was telling a story, and I would
know that I really miffed it when the person would
look at me and then have to feel like they
had to explain why I should be reacting more than
I am. And then I'd be like, oh, yeah, that
(28:49):
really sucks that that happened to you. It was not
It doesn't really make for good interactions, really makes people
want to stay away from you.
Speaker 1 (28:58):
Oh Josh, really dug that one?
Speaker 2 (29:00):
Huh right, like huh what? Because yeah, you don't say
huh what. I wasn't paying attention. You try to play
it off, and that actually makes it worse.
Speaker 1 (29:09):
Yeah, there are discourse markers, and they're just sort of words.
Or phrases like like organizationally help out like oh, or because,
and you're usually like connecting something to something that came
before it, right.
Speaker 2 (29:25):
And then the last one is laminated action, which is
when you combine it with a gesture that it doesn't
just change the meaning, it actually completes the meaning. Yeah,
Olivia gave an example of when you say, oh, yeah,
I've met him and you roll your eyes. Right, if
you just say oh yeah, i've met him, even that
(29:45):
same intonation, it doesn't tell the person what you actually
think about them. You roll your eyes, then they get
the whole picture. You've met them, you've judged them, you
can't stand them, you wish they were dead, dead dead.
Speaker 1 (29:59):
Yeah, role can sail those things exactly?
Speaker 2 (30:03):
Should we take another break now or keep going?
Speaker 1 (30:07):
Let's talk about overlap maybe and then we can take
a break. That feel about it? The idea, So overlap
is a really really like I feel like conversation analysts
just sort of light up whenever there's an overlap that
they can witness. They get pretty turned on by that
kind of thing. One common form is just like just
(30:27):
a simple misunderstanding, like I didn't know that your turn
was over I'm sorry. It's not the same thing as interruption.
Those are two different things. But interruption is like when
you stop in the middle of like stop somebody in
the middle of their sentence and talk over them. And
overlap is just when someone stops talking and had something
else to say, maybe and you start on your own train.
Speaker 2 (30:49):
Yeah, that's the thing I think I do the most
to you. I think you've done and then I keep
talking or I start talking. That is Yeah, that's just
up interruption. Unintentional. There is such thing as intentional interruption,
where somebody's trying to like gain control or dominate a conversation. Yeah,
aka total jerks.
Speaker 1 (31:11):
Right.
Speaker 2 (31:11):
There's also a different kind of interruption, which is a
cooperative interruption. Like when I say right to you while
you're telling a story, I'm actually interjecting it while you're
still using your turn. You're you're making a turn construction unit,
uh huh unit. But I'm helping you along at the
very least demonstrating I'm listening and participating in the conversation,
(31:34):
which makes it cooperative.
Speaker 1 (31:36):
Yeah, and those are just fine. You can interrupt people
all the time in the middle of their story and
even add to it if you're if you can, like
maybe you'll interrupt and say, like if somebody who's telling
a story about driving their car, you know, it's like,
you know it was a guy, Well kind of car
was you driving? And they'll say, oh, a BMW And
then everyone's like yeah, and they may have left out
(31:59):
that details. So that's all just sort of active participation
in the conversation precisely.
Speaker 2 (32:05):
We're also no.
Speaker 1 (32:06):
Shade toward BMW drivers. By the way, I'm not sure
why I set that car.
Speaker 2 (32:09):
We're also so good at this whole thing that we
can interrupt while someone's telling a story without taking away
from the story. For example, if you're sitting there having
dinner with somebody and they're telling a story and you say, hey,
pass the potatoes, right, it doesn't actually like derail the conversation,
and the person's not offended. Yeah, you're just you're just
(32:31):
fitting that in there so you can eat the potatoes
and enjoy them while you're hearing the story too.
Speaker 1 (32:37):
Yeah, and that's that can happen even I mean, dinner
party is such a good sort of experiment because it's
everyone seated around and looking at each other, and all
these conversations are happening that you can even do that
to someone else at the table during someone's story if
the potatoes are closer, but you might do it in
a hush tone, like during the middle of their story, Hey,
can you pass potatoes? Yeah, And that person may even
(32:57):
go they're so good, so like something like that.
Speaker 2 (33:00):
What kind of potatoes did you imagine when I said
pass the potatoes up?
Speaker 1 (33:05):
Mashed?
Speaker 2 (33:05):
Did you? I? I, for some reason thought of steamed
or baked red potatoes, and then I was like, those
are no good, So I changed it to scallop potatoes,
which are great.
Speaker 1 (33:16):
Oh man, you ever think everything, don't you?
Speaker 2 (33:19):
I totally do. And then I thought about human makes
really good scallop potatoes. It just kind of kept going
from there.
Speaker 1 (33:26):
I wonder what Chuck's talking about right now exactly?
Speaker 2 (33:29):
No, I was listening to. That is a bit of
a talent. I can listen and do that at the
same time.
Speaker 1 (33:34):
Okay, what exactly? I think? This is kind of really interesting.
There's a Georgetown University linguist named Deborah Tannan who did
a fun little experiment where she transcribed conversations between two Californians,
three New Yorkers, and a Londoner. And this should come
as no surprise. New Yorkers talked over everybody. And when
(33:55):
they did it with the fellow New Yorker, the other
New Yorker just kept talking, and they were sort of
talking over each other, and they were still enthusiastic and
having a good time. But when a New Yorker talked
over a Californian or a Londoner, they would stop talking
other people, you know. When they went back and looked
at it, others viewed it as like these New Yorkers
are dominating the conversation. They just want to take over.
(34:17):
Anytime I said anything, the New Yorkers were just like, hey,
it's all good. This is what we do. And they
found that as far as New Yorkers, and the New
Yorkers also thought that, like no one joined in, like
when they stopped talking, they were like, well, I guess
they didn't want to talk or whatever, because they're not
interrupting me right exactly. But they did find that other
(34:39):
scholars have found that there are these New York like
patterns and other cultures Samoan, Japanese and Italian American. And
so that's why every Italian American New York family. All
they do is just sit around and scream over each
other all the time.
Speaker 2 (34:53):
Right, Hey, Japanese stood out to me and I'm like,
that doesn't sound right, And then I thought of have
you ever seen a Japanese like Morning Talk?
Speaker 1 (35:00):
Oh? Sure? Yeah.
Speaker 2 (35:02):
So the the somebody like a guest or some other
anchor something will be talking and then one of the
hosts will interject, usually a question before the person is
finished talking, and the person stops saying what they were
saying and answers that question and adjusts without being offended
at all. So it actually happens quite a bit, and
(35:23):
usually toward the end of a sentence or a story
or something like that. But it does happen a lot.
Whereas American English speakers, you are done speaking, then the
person starts speaking, or else you have transgressed on that
person's turn for sure.
Speaker 1 (35:39):
Should we take a break? Yeah, all right, we'll take
a break and finish up right after this.
Speaker 2 (35:44):
Stucks Who Stucks?
Speaker 1 (35:47):
You know it? Stucks.
Speaker 2 (35:50):
It's a great name.
Speaker 1 (35:50):
Yeah, that's the name of it.
Speaker 2 (35:53):
It's a great name.
Speaker 1 (35:55):
All right.
Speaker 2 (35:55):
Stucks met with an X so we talked about how
like all of these are scripts or templates like there's
(36:16):
you say something and there's a predictable response, and there's
actually you can boil it down to what are called families.
So like different types of conversations fall into different kinds
of families. The big ones that we've seen are reconstruction, moralizing,
and projection. Right. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (36:34):
Reconstruction you know obviously reconstructing or remembering and sharing something
about an event with somebody. The projective is looking to
the future. Yeah, it could be very specific like where
we going to dinner, or just more like sitting around
and chatting out loud about like the real future. And
then what was moral communication about good and good and bad?
Speaker 2 (36:57):
Yeah, it's more about tearing people down or complimenting people,
and we are we tend way more toward negativity, tearing
people down rather than building people up, and are tearing
people down types of genres are way more intricate and
sophisticated than are building people up or complimenting. Because we
(37:20):
have a negative bias as a species.
Speaker 1 (37:24):
That's depressing.
Speaker 2 (37:25):
So we'll I'll grow it one day, just give us
several tens of thousands of years.
Speaker 1 (37:31):
Yeah, So at the beginning we kind of talked to
I think we gave an example of how this might
be used, like on the job or something, and sort
of practical applications do involve that, for sure, Like you
might be hired by a company to come in and
consult when that company does like has kind of the
same kind of conversation over and over with people, like
if it's a surgical team or a call center. For sure,
(37:54):
whenever you hear this call may be recorded for training
and evaluation purposes, that that's probably what they're doing right there,
or maybe just judging their own employees and how they're
doing on the job.
Speaker 2 (38:04):
Right for sure. They've also found you can help people
get certain types of responses that you're looking for, Like
we talked about the emergency psychiatric hospital where they wanted
to get the person's name and then trick them into it.
There was a guy named John Heritage, unsurprisingly from UCLA,
(38:25):
who worked with doctors to figure out how they could
get patients to volunteer more problems that they needed help with.
And they found that doctors who say, is there anything
else that you need help with today? Apparently anything triggers
a response a predictable response, which is no. But if
you change anything to something that for some reason that
(38:47):
particular script or template opens up the possibility of sharing
more information and you would just never figure that out.
And this is one of the sterling examples of how
conversation and let's like actually help things change for the better.
Speaker 1 (39:04):
Yeah, that was well said.
Speaker 2 (39:05):
Thank you, wait to go John heritage at all.
Speaker 1 (39:10):
A woman named Elizabeth Stoko of the London School of
Economics and Political Science found this when she studied conversations
in a mediation service that people. It seems like in
this case, people just kind of wanted to get down
to brass tacks on what actually they did. They didn't
want to hear things like well we don't take sides
here and we don't judge. They really wanted to hear
(39:32):
just sort of the step by step process of mediation
and how it worked.
Speaker 2 (39:35):
Yes, she also works with companies that are trying to
install customer service bots and I was reading about that
it's not going very well yet. People hate customer service
bots and there's a there's agree. Yeah, I'm one of
them too. There's a question of okay, is the solution
making these bots way more human? Like should we insert
things like have a box or you know, like waffle
(40:00):
like a human does, and from what I saw, the
consensus is no, don't do that. Bots should be recognizable
and volunteer themselves as bots humans are humans. Keep the
two separate. And I don't know which direction it's going.
It does kind of seem like the whole thing's in
the quagmire currently. But I also did see that bots
(40:21):
are poised to start taking over the reins from human
conversation analysts and doing it themselves, and then training bots
how to be better at their job. So one bot
training another bot, right, that's from what I can tell
the future of conversation analysis.
Speaker 1 (40:40):
Yeah. I mean with the movie Her that now is
like kind of freakily ahead of its time with Scarlett Johansson.
I think in that situation, they definitely wanted to make
her way more human and do things like stumble words
and make mistakes. But if it's something like a customer
service spot right, you don't want that. I don't want
(41:03):
it at all. But I definitely don't want one that's
like I just give Starn't.
Speaker 2 (41:07):
I cute exactly? Lol. So let's get down to it, though, Chuck.
Here's the real reason we started talking about this. Do
men interrupt women as much as people think.
Speaker 1 (41:20):
Well, I mean, this has been something that they've studied
a lot since the seventies about you know, the roles
that plays, and it's been mixed results. There have been
studies that found that men interrupt women much more. There's
some that found there's not much of a difference. There
was a meta analysis from ninety eight that found that
ginger divide becomes more clearcut when looking at intrusive, specifically
(41:44):
intrusive interruptions as to cooperative interruptions. And that's kind of
what I took away is that it seems like when
men are interrupting, it is definitely more intrusive maybe mansplaining, sure,
I don't know, yah, and interrupt maybe just as often,
but it's much more of the cooperative type, right.
Speaker 2 (42:05):
And they chalk this up to different kinds of upbringings
where girls who become women are raised to essentially socialized
through communication, through conversation, so they become masters at it,
but they also develop expectations that men don't necessarily fulfill,
like cooperative interruptions, like oh, that's right, you don't say.
(42:29):
If a man doesn't do that, the women might feel
like she's not being listened to and Conversely, boys are
raised in a hierarchical manner where they might eventually come
to see listening as a form of submission, where instead
they're trying to dominate. They want to be the alpha male,
they want their puffy vest to be the coolest at
(42:51):
their kids football game, and so not only are they
not going to cooperatively interrupt, they're not even gonna listen,
and they may interrupt competitively too. So there's a lot
of at least anecdotal data to back that up for sure.
Speaker 1 (43:09):
Yeah, and I think they also found that menton are
interrupt more in groups than a one on one, and
that definitely seems to fall in line with, like, you know,
trying to establish the power position and like if you're
working together in a group. They did also find another
interesting correlation where in studies where the first author of
the study was a woman, they found bigger differences, and
(43:33):
that just could be that the male and female researchers
are coding the interruptions in a different way. Pretty interesting,
I thought, so too. What about generationally, Well.
Speaker 2 (43:45):
So apparently gen Z is just throwing a huge wrench
in the works. Remember we talked about how at the hospital,
the emergency hospital when somebody called and they said, my
name is May I help you? Right, the other person
felt obligated to give their name. It's not true like
when we were growing up, you would not feel like
you had to say, oh, well, I'm Josh Clark and
here's what I need from you. You just say, hey,
(44:08):
I need this or whatever. That's an example of a
generational change that took place. Now it's even more pronounced.
Apparently with gen Z there's something called the gen Z
stare where they're essentially pulling a Josh where you can
tell them a story and they just stare back at
you blankly at the end when it's their turn. And
apparently it's fairly disconcerting.
Speaker 1 (44:30):
Yeah, I've heard about it and then I was like,
what is that? Then I read up about it and
it is very disconcerting, as is the phone call thing,
which I haven't experienced because people don't call each other
much anymore. Yeah, but apparently gen Z when they answer
a phone, they don't go hello, They expect the other
person to talk for so apparently there's a gen Z
thing where they just answer the phone like this.
Speaker 2 (44:53):
Yeah, and then the other hello, or do you need help?
That's what I would say.
Speaker 1 (45:01):
Yeah, And I mean, I guess I've definitely witnessed the
gen z stare with our friends' kids here and there
to where you're just like, boy, I just like I
must be the least interesting human on earth because they're
just blankly looking at me.
Speaker 2 (45:16):
Yeah. Yeah. Or you can look at it the other
way and be like, yeah, good talking to you. I'll
see you later.
Speaker 1 (45:22):
Yeah. But I've also found, especially when you're around teenagers,
like your friends that have teenage kids, like just don't
even you know, maybe say something nice and hello, but
don't try to strike up a conversation. They don't want
to talk to you. No, just don't, I think, just
move along.
Speaker 2 (45:38):
That's been true since Tuck Tuck was a teenager, you
know what I mean.
Speaker 1 (45:42):
You know what I usually do. I'll go like, Ye're like, oh, hey,
how's it going. How's school going this year? Oh? Good, good,
glad to hear it, and I'll just walk away like
a nice thing to say, and then just end it.
Speaker 2 (45:53):
You don't follow up with like, are you really anxious
when you wake up in the morning before school?
Speaker 1 (45:59):
No, no, no, no one wants to hear from an adult.
If you're at a certain age.
Speaker 2 (46:04):
Okay, I'm going to have to rethink my approach. Then.
Speaker 1 (46:07):
Do you remember when you were a kid like I
don't remember even having conversations with adults?
Speaker 2 (46:12):
Oh yeah, no, absolutely not. You know, I'm totally kidding
this in everything I'm saying, right, Oh yeah, yeah, no,
I remember that it was very intimidating to talk to
an adult, let alone having very little in common.
Speaker 1 (46:25):
Yeah, and they didn't want to talk to us.
Speaker 2 (46:26):
No, No, for sure.
Speaker 1 (46:28):
Gen X was famously ignored by most adults.
Speaker 2 (46:31):
Yeah, very famous. Just ask Douglas Copelan.
Speaker 1 (46:35):
Who's that.
Speaker 2 (46:36):
He's the guy who wrote gen X.
Speaker 1 (46:38):
Oh? Okay, was that a book? Famous book?
Speaker 2 (46:40):
Yes? I believe he's the one who coined the term.
Speaker 1 (46:43):
Oh you should read it.
Speaker 2 (46:45):
It's good. It's a quick read. It's not like an
essay or anything like that. It's his story about three
gen xers and just going through life over I think,
just the course of a few days.
Speaker 1 (46:56):
I've been a reading fool lately. I'll put it on
the list.
Speaker 2 (46:58):
Nice. I just started in, and I'll bet I regret
ever announcing it publicly.
Speaker 1 (47:03):
Because that David Foster Waller.
Speaker 2 (47:06):
Yes, and I love that guy. But this is a
slog already.
Speaker 1 (47:10):
Yeah, I'm finishing. I just finished the bonobook that I
had put down like a year ago, and I am
almost done with the Don Felder of the Eagles. Good lord.
You might be asking why would you read that? It's
specifically because I used to love the Eagles and he
apparently the book was just really bitchy.
Speaker 2 (47:32):
Oh okay, yeah, I could say.
Speaker 1 (47:34):
I was like, Ooh, I want to read this because
he's like, he hates those guys, so let me read this.
Speaker 2 (47:37):
Did Matthew Modine recommend you read it in his diary
about Full Metal Jacket?
Speaker 1 (47:43):
No, that's my bathroom book. So I've just been slow
rolling that one.
Speaker 2 (47:46):
Gotcha. I don't think you should use words like slow
rolling when you talk about being in the bathroom.
Speaker 1 (47:52):
Good point.
Speaker 2 (47:53):
Well, I think we just brought about listener mail, whether
we like it or not, don't you.
Speaker 1 (48:00):
That's right. This is not a really correction, just sort
of maybe a gentle reminder about our history of orthodonture.
I feel like we might have focused a little too
much on appearance this from erin. Hey, guys, appreciate the
depth of curiosity you bring to each topic, and I
wanted to offer an update regarding orthodontia, it's not just
about appearance anymore. The field has evolved significantly in current
research shows that strong connection between jaw and bite alignment
(48:23):
and conditions like sleep, apnea, ADHD, and TMJ dysfunction, which
is of course totally true. While some of these links
were suspected years ago, orthodonic treatment today is increasingly focused
on preventing or mitigating these issues and the ute before
they become chronic. On a personal note, my journey with
TMJ dysfunction led me down the path of exploring treatment options,
(48:44):
and after years of discomfort, I found relief through invisil line.
It not only helped with my smile, realign my bite
and significantly reduce my TMJ symptoms and open my eyes
to the broader health benefits of orthodonic care. And that
is warm regards from Aaron. Very nice email Aaron, and
visit right.
Speaker 2 (49:03):
Yeah exactly, thanks a lot, Erin. I'm really glad Erin
with an E or a double A or one that's
E R I N. Thanks a lot, Aaron. I'm glad
that you were able to take care of your TMJ.
I can't imagine that that's a fun chronic condition. You know,
if you got rid of a condition that you're happy about,
we want to hear about that, or for whatever reason
(49:23):
you want to write in. You can send us an
email send it off to stuff podcast at iHeartRadio dot com.
Speaker 1 (49:32):
Stuff you Should Know is a production of iHeartRadio. For
more podcasts my heart Radio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Welcome to stuff you should know, a production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
Hey, and welcome to the podcast. I'm Josh, and there's Chuck.
I'm Chucky already.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
You know, you know I thought a moose apropos.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Oh it's my turn to talk. Yeah, oh, well played.
I'm not very good at this. As you know, if
you have ever listened to the podcast, and I know
you have because you're one of the co hosts, you
know that I step on you a lot. Now, yep,
I'll keep going with my turn constructional unit. Then how
(00:46):
confused are people? Do you think right now?
Speaker 1 (00:49):
I don't know, probably very I mean we should say
this is all just a bit to sort of demonstrate
a conversational analysis. Yeah, well thatword demonst the analysis. If
someone was sitting in another room making notes about how
we were talking like a creep, Yeah, that would be
a conversational analysis. We were just demonstrating poor communication pretty much.
Speaker 2 (01:13):
But it would be a bonanza for a conversation analyst
a CAA as they like to call themselves. This is
a super super niche field of science. I guess it
would be a social science because it branched off from sociology,
but one of the things that I've noticed about it
is that people like to try to push it into
(01:34):
a typical social science, right, like come up with some
theories like why do people do these things that you
guys are studying, and conversation analysis says, no, we're not
going to do that. Instead, we are purely about observation,
noticing patterns and then figuring out how those patterns predict
other patterns, and how all these different patterns fit together
(01:55):
in this grand way to make up conversation. And you
might say, well, that's pretty boring, wouldn't you, Chuck.
Speaker 1 (02:04):
I mean, I'll let you finish and then I'll give
you my take.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
Okay, you might say it's pretty boring if you were Chuck.
The reason why it's interesting is because it reveals something
about us that conversation is one of those things that
we're really really good at without realizing what we're doing.
That conversation is an amazing interaction between two or more
people that gets stuff done, that shares information that you
(02:29):
can make a case basically our entire human civilization is
based on the fact that we're able to converse pretty
much effortlessly, even though in a lot of times it
just does not make sense.
Speaker 1 (02:40):
Yeah, my deal with this is I'll get to this
episode and then I want to wipe it from my
memory bank because I'm one of those people that the
last thing I want to think about is how I'm
conversing with somebody. And it reminds me that that scene
in Better Off Dead, when early on John Cusack is
(03:02):
having like his early A flashback, I think to his
first meeting with his girlfriend and whether they're in his
head and he's like, Oh, she just touched her nose.
Does that mean I have something on my face? And
then she's like, oh, he just touched his face, Do
I mustard on my face or something like that? And
then before you know it, they're just going crazy. And
that's kind of what this does to me, is I
(03:22):
don't want to think about Like I'm very much organic
when it comes to stuff like this, and the last
thing I want to think about is did I say
that right? Or did I interrupt somebody? Or was I
did I act interested enough? Like that kind of thing?
Just I have no place for that in my life.
Speaker 2 (03:40):
That's funny because that is almost one hundred percent of
what goes on in my mind when I'm talking or
when someone else is talking like, I can't help but
do that.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
I know, and I know that, and I feel for
you for that because that can't be fun.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
It's really tiring. So Okay, this is like potentially a
career ending raphic pick that I made.
Speaker 1 (04:05):
Hunt no, no, no, no, no. I just you know, it's interesting,
and then I just don't want to ever think about it.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
Okay, we'll do a good job doing that, and I'm
sorry for even picking it. Well, let's dive into all
of this because it is interesting in and of itself,
even though it is a really strange discipline in the
way that it's set up.
Speaker 1 (04:21):
Yeah, it draws from a couple of fields. Primarily Libya
helped us with this one, and I can tell because
it's awesome. Ethn No methodology, and that is it's studying
how people not just how they make sense of the world,
but how they do it in relation to others and
how they collaborate with others.
Speaker 2 (04:40):
Right.
Speaker 1 (04:41):
And then socio linguistics, which is language but not just language,
language specifically with like how it relates in specific cultures,
in the context of different cultures. And there were three
key players and researchers doing this in the nineteen seventies,
mainly Yeah, at UCLA go bruins. The persone is a
(05:04):
sociologist named Harvey Sachs, and he seems to have kind
of been the ringleader here. He's the grand Pappy of
conversation analysis. He started at UCLA in the sixties, that
really got into this in the mid seventies.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
Yeah, and he stopped in the seventies because the poor
guy died in a car crash at forty years old
in nineteen seventy five. And he really only worked on
this for just over a decade, but he figured it out.
He laid this down, and part of it was that
he benefited from working closely with some other sociologists, including
Irvin Goffman, who was the star of our impression Management episode.
(05:43):
And I think that might have been where I first
heard of conversation in alliance. And then so he was
working with IRVN. Goffman. They weren't doing the same thing,
but they were both coming from that same strain of sociology,
which is it was really transitional at a time from
studying huge institutions like religion or government and zooming into
(06:04):
a much more granular, almost micro interaction level. So that's
what Goffman was into with impression management. Harvey Sachs was
into that with conversation.
Speaker 1 (06:13):
Yeah, he didn't publish a lot of stuff. This wasn't
like white paper, peer reviewed kind of stuff. That was
mainly like, you know, sort of pre ted talk kind
of thing like, Hey, isn't this interesting. Here's my lectures.
I'm going to make them available. You can take a
gander if you want. Right then, there was a student
of SAS named Gail Jefferson there at ECLA who was
(06:34):
a dance major but had this interesting job. She worked
as a typist for the Department of Public Health, and
part of that included transcribing sensitivity training sessions with prison guards,
and so she got really interested in a very kind
of key part of conversation with something called turntaking, when
you you know, take turns talking and a lot of
(06:55):
this will be about like the cues that people give
to let the other person know, hey, now it's your
turn to speak, or how to interject constructively or interrupt constructively,
things like that. But that seemed to kind of fascinate
her when she was transcribing these training sessions with the
prison guards, and so she got interested in that. She
(07:16):
ended up developing a whole system called the Jefferson transcription System,
which you're going to talk about a little bit, basically,
how to kind of make sense of all this stuff
when you're writing down how people are speaking to one
another and then later on it's kind of interesting. I
think she worked with laughter. She was fascinated by laughter
(07:37):
and how that works us way into a conversation and
how someone may cue someone to laugh at something they've
even said themselves by giving a small laugh after they've
said that thing.
Speaker 2 (07:48):
Yeah. The third guy is Emmanual Sheglof, and he seems
to have kind of taken the reins after Harvey Sachs
passed away, that's my stake. He became the chair of
the Conversation Analysis Department at UCLA, which seems to be
the center of conversation analysis from what I can tell.
(08:10):
He also received a Lifetime Achievement Award from the American
Sociological Association in twenty ten. So he was a big
man on campus essentially.
Speaker 1 (08:19):
Yeah, he was a big brewin on campus. But he
they kind of started out and got, you know, with
kind of the simpler side of things, which is like, hey,
let's look at telephone calls and just sort of everyday
interactions with people, like what do people say at the
beginning of a phone call? What do people say at
the end of a phone call? And this is sort
(08:40):
of the bird's eye view of like just very basic
interactions before they got more specific with their observations, I guess.
Speaker 2 (08:49):
Yeah. But also one of the genius things about studying
phone calls is how do two people who aren't looking
at each other know when it's their turn to talk?
And they don't just exactly and they don't just sit
there and talk over one another constantly and it's just
one big jumbled mass. That's what I was talking about earlier.
We're really good at conversation. We don't even realize it. Yeah,
(09:10):
but one of the first things you have to do
then is not just record the phone call. You have
to transcribe it. And that's what Gail Jefferson came up with,
was that method of transcribing that it's pretty clever. If
you know what you're looking at. You can get a
lot of information from this transcription if it's used the
Jefferson method.
Speaker 1 (09:29):
Yeah, and this was like, you know, this came around
the early seventies. This is when linguist Gnome Chomsky was
kind of out there in the public sphere with his
idea that there's a universal grammar and this doesn't you know,
this didn't set out to disprove that or anything like that.
It was really more of let's look at different cultures
and dynamics within a conversation. Because Chomsky, and you know
(09:52):
some of his cohorts, was like, you know, conversations are
just you can't analyze this kind of stuff stmatically. The
conversations are too irregular and too different between people. And
they were like, nah, I think we can actually come
up with some principles that are consistent enough to do it.
And I think they did totally.
Speaker 2 (10:11):
And one of the first projects that they started, one
of Harvey Sach's first projects was he worked with a
psychiatric hospital, an emergency psychiatric hospital. So their work's pretty urgent,
you can imagine. And one of the things that they
wanted to figure out was how to get patients to
give them their name when they called in, because there
(10:33):
was a certain amount of reluctance, as you can imagine,
especially back in the mid to late sixties.
Speaker 1 (10:38):
Yeah, they found out when a call was answered at
one of these places, they would say, if they said
just hello, the person might just say hello. But if
they said, well, hi, this is doctor Charles Bryant. What
can I do for you today? May I help you?
The people were much more inclined to then respond by saying, oh, well,
(10:58):
this is also Charles, and I'm calling because I'm having
some intrusive thoughts or something like that.
Speaker 2 (11:05):
Right, And then the receptionists would go, ah, I got you,
I got your name, we know your name now.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
Yeah. Sometimes they found that people would not respond in
kind with their name, and in those cases, it's pretty
interesting and this, you know, kind of provided another little
nugget of information for how these things go. Yeah, when
they did not say, oh, yeah, my name's Chuck and
I'm having, you know, intrusive thoughts, they would sort of
introduce like an like a disruptor. They would say something
(11:35):
like huh or what and just a small little bump
in the road to change the conversational flow, right, subtly
kind of saying like I don't want to give you
my name without saying I don't want to give you
my name.
Speaker 2 (11:46):
Right, Because what they found, conversation analysts found was that
we follow set patterns, these kind of prescribed rhythms of conversations.
So if you interrupt this the flow of one type
of conversation would say a huh, a new set of
rules comes up that takes the conversation from there that
(12:08):
both people are aware of but don't realize they're aware of,
which to me, I hadn't thought about it. But if
you've ever said huh to somebody when you knew full
well what they had just said, you were just reflexively
trying to derail or disrupt that type of script in
favor of a different one. Never realized that before, but
it makes sense.
Speaker 1 (12:27):
Or maybe by time even, but it's just some sort
of a disruptor to divert something for some reason. Sacks
identified another thing called composits, and they're phrases that are
kind of combined as a unit, and it usually is
a prompt for some kind of response, Like if someone
says may I help you like that on the telephone,
(12:49):
what they're then obviously is asking you for a response.
They'll let you know what's going on, and in the
case of like an emergency call center, they might literally
respond to may I help you by saying I don't know.
And what they found was is it wasn't like like
that was a reasonable response, like somebody might literally say like,
I don't know if you can help me, and it
(13:09):
needed to be sort of taking a face value like.
Speaker 2 (13:11):
That, right. What that suggested that Sex discovered was that
there were these composites where if you're saying, man, I
help you, you don't mean it at face value. It's
a part of a I think what would be called
later an adjacent pair, where you prompt, you say something
that's a prompt and there's an expected like range of
(13:33):
responses to it, and anything outside of that is like Okay,
that makes sense on paper, but it doesn't make sense conversationally.
And he kind of supported this with the idea he
wrote in a nineteen seventy five paper that everybody has
to lie yeah, And he used the example of like
a greeting among people meeting on the street, where you say, like,
(13:56):
how are you doing, and if the person says anything
other than fine or great or good, they have just
violated this type of composite prompt. You're not supposed to
say anything else. And even more interesting than this, chuck
is that they seem to have found that this is
actually universal. It's not just like among Americans or English
(14:17):
speakers or Germans or anything like that. Everybody essentially does
not want to know how you're actually doing.
Speaker 1 (14:24):
Yeah, And I found that that's a very good indicator
of closeness and how you know that you've developed a
true like closeness with someone else, like a friendship or whatever,
because that's much more of a formal thing. Even if
you know somebody but don't know them that well, you'll
say oh, like yeah, yeah, I'm doing fine. They're like, oh,
pretty good. But if it's somebody you really know when
(14:44):
you're close to, you don't have to lie. You can
very easily say I'm super tired or I'm not doing
great because xyz.
Speaker 2 (14:53):
Yeah. If you find somebody who actually does want to
know how you're doing, you hang on to that.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
Person, right. Or if you meet someone up blue and
say how you doing and they start in with the truth,
then just walk.
Speaker 2 (15:03):
Away, right, maybe even jog away.
Speaker 1 (15:06):
Yeah, red flag.
Speaker 2 (15:08):
Uh So. One of the other big breakthroughs was came
along when you could rent VCRs and they had giant
recording equipment like the kind they used in poultry Geist.
That changed conversation analysis, where now all of a sudden
you could see all the stuff that goes along with it.
It wasn't just telephone calls from disembodied voices. You could
(15:29):
see how people interacted and it opened up this whole
new world for sure.
Speaker 1 (15:34):
Should we take a break?
Speaker 2 (15:35):
I knew you were gonna say that.
Speaker 1 (15:38):
All right, we'll be right back.
Speaker 2 (15:39):
Stucks, It sucks, you know it stucks. It's a great name.
Speaker 1 (15:46):
Yeah, that's the name of it.
Speaker 2 (15:49):
It's a great name. All right, Stucks met.
Speaker 1 (15:51):
With an X. You know, before we broke you talked
about the huge cameras, and I'm reading Matthew Modine's diary
(16:11):
of making a Full Metal Jacket, you know, the actor
of Matthew Modine.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
Of course I know exactly what you're talking about. But
number one, I can't believe there is such a thing.
In number two, I can't believe you're reading it.
Speaker 1 (16:22):
Oh, it's great. It's his diary when he was making
the movie. Casey actually got it for me when we
were doing movie Crushes. Very sweet gift. But he at
one point he was talking about having to put yourself
on tape for an audition, which is something routinely done
all the time now, especially since the writer strikes and
COVID and stuff. But he was like, it's just such
(16:43):
a pain. You got to know somebody who has one
of those huge video cameras and you have to go
to their studio and blah blah blah.
Speaker 2 (16:49):
It was just like it was very cute and quaint Yep,
my niece Mila has to do that a lot.
Speaker 1 (16:53):
Yeah, Yeah, it's it's super It's kind of the way
it's done now.
Speaker 2 (16:56):
For sure, sure, but yeah, I imagine it's it's I
don't know which would be worse doing it live in
front of people, are doing it in front of a
recording that you're getting zero feedback from.
Speaker 1 (17:07):
The Every actor I knows hates putting themselves on tape.
They would much rather be in the.
Speaker 2 (17:12):
Room, gotcha, because they're all energy vampires, right exactly. So
one of the things I kind of alluded to earlier
is that conversation analysis is not a standard social science,
and that it doesn't develop theories of why people are
doing these things or why you said this when somebody
else said that. Again, they're just looking for patterns. They're
(17:33):
looking at its structure. And the cool thing about it
is that that doesn't mean that they're not deriving any meaning.
They're not postulating what it means. Like for example, they're
not going up to two listeners or two speakers and
they go to speaker number two and say, what do
you think speaker number one meant when they said how
are you doing? They just analyze the conversation, and based
(17:56):
on speaker two's response, that tells the conversation analysts what
speaker number two thought speaker number one was saying. So
just by examining it they can come up with meaning
or derive meaning from it. And again, it's just not
like other social sciences, and it seems to really stick
in the craw of everybody else. I love it.
Speaker 1 (18:17):
Yeah, they also didn't want to They wanted to be
as organic as possible and just have people have naturally
natural conversations with each other rather than orchestrating some big
like scenarios. You do have to just because of scientific
ethics and stuff, you have to tell people they're being recorded,
so you can't truly be just a fly on the wall.
But they did find that just the introduction of a
(18:41):
recording device they didn't feel like and I think they've
shown through evidence that it didn't really significantly change things
enough to where the result was thrown out or whatever.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
Right, right, And like we said that, when you are
beginning a conversation analysis, you start with a recording of
a conversation. Nowadays it's with videotapes, and then you transcribe it.
And one of the big things in conversation analysis is
when you transcribe it, you need to do it as
(19:11):
objectively as possible. You need to keep out your own
subjective thoughts about who did what and just faithfully say
this was an interruption, this was a TCU. This person
took a break breath in the middle of their word.
Josh just said he corrected himself in the middle of
the sentence. So he just used the repair and notate
(19:33):
all this stuff without any subjective input from you, and
then you go back and you analyze it after it's
been fully transcribed.
Speaker 1 (19:42):
Yeah, and so you've been very cleverly, i might say,
subtly dropping in little little words here and there that
people are like, what's he talking about with this stuff?
That's the stuff that they're looking for, and that's the
stuff that they named, like things that like in common parlance,
we know some of these things like rejoinders and interruptions
(20:03):
and things like that. But you know they're analysts, so
they took it a step further. And here are some
of those right now. One of them is called a
turn constructional unit TCU obviously not Texas Christian University.
Speaker 2 (20:17):
There are frogs, horn toads, horn frogs. I think something
like that, Yeah, chief and tree frogs.
Speaker 1 (20:23):
I think that's it. But turn construction units are the
building blocks of any conversation, of every conversation. And it
can be just a gesture like a nod at somebody,
it can be multiple sentences, but they end up with
what's called a transition relevance place a TRP, and that
is a moment where like what you've said has ended
(20:46):
and someone else may have a turn to speak now,
or you may say something else after that, and that's
just you taking another turn, basically and having two turn
constructional units in a row.
Speaker 2 (21:01):
And so what just right after you said in a row,
that's where the transition relevance place was. That was it
because it gave me a chance to start talking, and
everything you said leading up to it was the turn
constructional unit. That was your turn. You took your turn
in the conversation. There was a pause that allowed me
to start taking my turn, And that's the basic building
(21:23):
blocks of the conversation.
Speaker 1 (21:25):
That's right, Okay, see, you're good at this.
Speaker 2 (21:28):
There's also when I analyze it, sure, there's also like
a lot of different I guess rules or exceptions or whatever.
Like you could say, you could use two turns in
a row without really allowing for a transition relevance, place
that pause that allows the other speaker to start. For example,
(21:49):
you could say, are you hungry? I could go for
a burger. You actually just took two turns like a
big fat hog without any pause in the middle. And
yet that's not considered like any sort of violation of conversation.
It's just again, it's like an exception. It's a way
that we've kind of we're so good at conversation, we
(22:09):
can show off by taking two turns in a row
and not mess up the flow of conversation.
Speaker 1 (22:14):
Yeah, exactly if it's and we have to point out
too that a lot of times they were looking at
conversations between just two people, but you can also analyze
conversations in groups. It's just sort of a different beast.
But in conversations with more than two people at that
transition relevance place where it's probably someone else's turn to talk.
Like if you're a group of people at a dinner
(22:36):
party and you're telling a story, it's very common to
finish up the story and not just stare blankly into space.
But you finish up the story and maybe look at
one particular person, and there may be a reason for that.
Maybe it's your person, or maybe it's the person you
originally sort of started this story in reference to what
this other person was saying, so you'll kind of turn
it back to them. But you know, that's one way
(22:58):
you can sort of indicate like, hey, now I'm looking
at you, and that they may not speak at that point.
It may, you know, someone else may jump in. It
just sort of depends, right.
Speaker 2 (23:07):
You could also make a finger gun and go at
that person and they and they'll take over. One of
the things. I laughed a minute ago when you talked
about staring blankly at the ceiling. It's so silly when
you when you just you just take out like a
proper response and put in something else. It just makes
me laugh every time because it's so prescribed like this
(23:29):
these scripts are so prescribed that doing anything other than
that is is just absurd and hilarious.
Speaker 1 (23:36):
Yeah, I mean, it's it's like hidden camera material.
Speaker 2 (23:39):
You know. So I mentioned I think I corrected myself.
Actually it's considered an interruption when I misspoke and said
breath weirdly and then set it again correctly right after
I actually interrupted myself, and I referred to that as
a repair mechanism. Yeah, that's exactly what it is, because
(23:59):
one of the unsung parts of human interaction and conversation
is that we have to have ways of correcting and
adjusting misunderstandings. If we didn't, we would be able to converse,
but two people would walk away from the conversation potentially
with totally different understandings of the information that was just exchanged. Right,
(24:22):
So we have to be able to correct ourselves when
we know we made a mistake, and then also conversely,
we need to be able to ask for clarification if
we didn't understand what the person was saying.
Speaker 1 (24:34):
Yeah, or someone else may ask for that clarification or
something like that. So the repair doesn't have to come.
It's not necessarily a self repair always.
Speaker 2 (24:42):
Right, But it doesn't mean like going to the person
and being like, I'm really sorry, and I'm not going
to do this anymore, and here's how we're going to
do it better from this point forward. Not that kind
of repair.
Speaker 1 (24:52):
There are also gaps something to identify when they're analyzing conversations,
and we all know what that is that I believe
I always call them, and friends have called them awkward
pauses when it's not clear who the next speaker gonna
is going to be, and that can happen, like you
know you can, and even with groups of close friends
in a very social situation. In fact, I feel like
(25:13):
that's when it's most sort of noticeable, is when like
you're at a dinner party in something, and everyone's laughing
and saying things, and then everyone just draws a blank
for a couple of beats. Sure, and then someone will
usually say like awkward pause or something like that and
not say like that's a technically it's a conversation gap.
Speaker 2 (25:31):
That's I think a good a good replacement now because
awkward pause is so used up to just be like
conversation gap, so it can be uncomfortable when it happens naturally,
naturally like that, like every everybody's just kind of run
out of things to say about whatever that conversation was.
It's even more uncomfortable when somebody misses their turn to speak, right,
(25:54):
they don't clearly yes, well, they don't give any sort
of response right. That is, that can cause a gap,
and a lot of times you can signal that by
like repeating the question you just asked, saying the punchline
one more time, saying something like what do you think
(26:14):
about that? A prompting thing, And then there's also nonverbal
ways of signaling gaps, like putting both hands in the
air and going into a forward lunch.
Speaker 1 (26:25):
Right. I've always found that if the joke doesn't go,
we're just merely repeating the punchline again, always.
Speaker 2 (26:29):
Works exactly over and over and over again.
Speaker 1 (26:33):
You may not have heard me adjacent sea pairs. I
think you might have mentioned that, But that's when when
a specific kind of response is expected, so like how's
it going, Hey, I'm doing pretty good. They're also a
lot of times referred to as pre sequences, so just
sort of like it's sort of like a pad answer almost.
Speaker 2 (26:54):
Yeah, like come in, won't you thank you? That'd be invitation, acceptance,
greeting greeting question answer. There's actually a lot of those
that those are the ones that are maybe even silliest
when you replace it. Like if somebody says would you
like a slice of cake? And you go hello, Right,
it doesn't work.
Speaker 1 (27:15):
Well, what if you went hello, exactly.
Speaker 2 (27:18):
I was gonna say the same thing. Like, we've figured
out ways around that. You can massage the rules and
get even more creative with the whole thing. That you
could use something that's totally inappropriate and make it appropriate.
The best thing about something that funny is explaining it
to death.
Speaker 1 (27:34):
All right, here you ask me for cake one more time?
I got one more?
Speaker 2 (27:37):
Okay, would you like a slice of cake?
Speaker 1 (27:40):
Cok yourself?
Speaker 2 (27:43):
That works. It kind of works to an extent for sure.
Speaker 1 (27:47):
Stories is another one. When you mentioned the staring into
space at the end of like a question to you,
that can also happen at the end of a story
if you don't know what you're doing as a as
a communicator, when you start a story, you a lot
of time give an indicator that you know that it's
going to be you for a minute or two by
saying something like didn't I ever tell you about or
(28:09):
something like that, or get a sort of interest, Yeah,
get a load of this, or I'll tell you what
happened to me, And then you start your sort of story,
and usually you will end it by kind of looking
in someone's direction. And that's when you should sort of
acknowledge by either saying like, oh man, that's so funny
or just something like that, and not just stare blankly
back at somebody.
Speaker 2 (28:29):
So I have I'm guilty of doing that, especially before
I started treating my ADHD. My mind would wander very
easily when somebody was telling a story, and I would
know that I really miffed it when the person would
look at me and then have to feel like they
had to explain why I should be reacting more than
I am. And then I'd be like, oh, yeah, that
(28:49):
really sucks that that happened to you. It was not
It doesn't really make for good interactions, really makes people
want to stay away from you.
Speaker 1 (28:58):
Oh Josh, really dug that one?
Speaker 2 (29:00):
Huh right, like huh what? Because yeah, you don't say
huh what. I wasn't paying attention. You try to play
it off, and that actually makes it worse.
Speaker 1 (29:09):
Yeah, there are discourse markers, and they're just sort of words.
Or phrases like like organizationally help out like oh, or because,
and you're usually like connecting something to something that came
before it, right.
Speaker 2 (29:25):
And then the last one is laminated action, which is
when you combine it with a gesture that it doesn't
just change the meaning, it actually completes the meaning. Yeah,
Olivia gave an example of when you say, oh, yeah,
I've met him and you roll your eyes. Right, if
you just say oh yeah, i've met him, even that
(29:45):
same intonation, it doesn't tell the person what you actually
think about them. You roll your eyes, then they get
the whole picture. You've met them, you've judged them, you
can't stand them, you wish they were dead, dead dead.
Speaker 1 (29:59):
Yeah, role can sail those things exactly?
Speaker 2 (30:03):
Should we take another break now or keep going?
Speaker 1 (30:07):
Let's talk about overlap maybe and then we can take
a break. That feel about it? The idea, So overlap
is a really really like I feel like conversation analysts
just sort of light up whenever there's an overlap that
they can witness. They get pretty turned on by that
kind of thing. One common form is just like just
(30:27):
a simple misunderstanding, like I didn't know that your turn
was over I'm sorry. It's not the same thing as interruption.
Those are two different things. But interruption is like when
you stop in the middle of like stop somebody in
the middle of their sentence and talk over them. And
overlap is just when someone stops talking and had something
else to say, maybe and you start on your own train.
Speaker 2 (30:49):
Yeah, that's the thing I think I do the most
to you. I think you've done and then I keep
talking or I start talking. That is Yeah, that's just
up interruption. Unintentional. There is such thing as intentional interruption,
where somebody's trying to like gain control or dominate a conversation. Yeah,
aka total jerks.
Speaker 1 (31:11):
Right.
Speaker 2 (31:11):
There's also a different kind of interruption, which is a
cooperative interruption. Like when I say right to you while
you're telling a story, I'm actually interjecting it while you're
still using your turn. You're you're making a turn construction unit,
uh huh unit. But I'm helping you along at the
very least demonstrating I'm listening and participating in the conversation,
(31:34):
which makes it cooperative.
Speaker 1 (31:36):
Yeah, and those are just fine. You can interrupt people
all the time in the middle of their story and
even add to it if you're if you can, like
maybe you'll interrupt and say, like if somebody who's telling
a story about driving their car, you know, it's like,
you know it was a guy, Well kind of car
was you driving? And they'll say, oh, a BMW And
then everyone's like yeah, and they may have left out
(31:59):
that details. So that's all just sort of active participation
in the conversation precisely.
Speaker 2 (32:05):
We're also no.
Speaker 1 (32:06):
Shade toward BMW drivers. By the way, I'm not sure
why I set that car.
Speaker 2 (32:09):
We're also so good at this whole thing that we
can interrupt while someone's telling a story without taking away
from the story. For example, if you're sitting there having
dinner with somebody and they're telling a story and you say, hey,
pass the potatoes, right, it doesn't actually like derail the conversation,
and the person's not offended. Yeah, you're just you're just
(32:31):
fitting that in there so you can eat the potatoes
and enjoy them while you're hearing the story too.
Speaker 1 (32:37):
Yeah, and that's that can happen even I mean, dinner
party is such a good sort of experiment because it's
everyone seated around and looking at each other, and all
these conversations are happening that you can even do that
to someone else at the table during someone's story if
the potatoes are closer, but you might do it in
a hush tone, like during the middle of their story, Hey,
can you pass potatoes? Yeah, And that person may even
(32:57):
go they're so good, so like something like that.
Speaker 2 (33:00):
What kind of potatoes did you imagine when I said
pass the potatoes up?
Speaker 1 (33:05):
Mashed?
Speaker 2 (33:05):
Did you? I? I, for some reason thought of steamed
or baked red potatoes, and then I was like, those
are no good, So I changed it to scallop potatoes,
which are great.
Speaker 1 (33:16):
Oh man, you ever think everything, don't you?
Speaker 2 (33:19):
I totally do. And then I thought about human makes
really good scallop potatoes. It just kind of kept going
from there.
Speaker 1 (33:26):
I wonder what Chuck's talking about right now exactly?
Speaker 2 (33:29):
No, I was listening to. That is a bit of
a talent. I can listen and do that at the
same time.
Speaker 1 (33:34):
Okay, what exactly? I think? This is kind of really interesting.
There's a Georgetown University linguist named Deborah Tannan who did
a fun little experiment where she transcribed conversations between two Californians,
three New Yorkers, and a Londoner. And this should come
as no surprise. New Yorkers talked over everybody. And when
(33:55):
they did it with the fellow New Yorker, the other
New Yorker just kept talking, and they were sort of
talking over each other, and they were still enthusiastic and
having a good time. But when a New Yorker talked
over a Californian or a Londoner, they would stop talking
other people, you know. When they went back and looked
at it, others viewed it as like these New Yorkers
are dominating the conversation. They just want to take over.
(34:17):
Anytime I said anything, the New Yorkers were just like, hey,
it's all good. This is what we do. And they
found that as far as New Yorkers, and the New
Yorkers also thought that, like no one joined in, like
when they stopped talking, they were like, well, I guess
they didn't want to talk or whatever, because they're not
interrupting me right exactly. But they did find that other
(34:39):
scholars have found that there are these New York like
patterns and other cultures Samoan, Japanese and Italian American. And
so that's why every Italian American New York family. All
they do is just sit around and scream over each
other all the time.
Speaker 2 (34:53):
Right, Hey, Japanese stood out to me and I'm like,
that doesn't sound right, And then I thought of have
you ever seen a Japanese like Morning Talk?
Speaker 1 (35:00):
Oh? Sure? Yeah.
Speaker 2 (35:02):
So the the somebody like a guest or some other
anchor something will be talking and then one of the
hosts will interject, usually a question before the person is
finished talking, and the person stops saying what they were
saying and answers that question and adjusts without being offended
at all. So it actually happens quite a bit, and
(35:23):
usually toward the end of a sentence or a story
or something like that. But it does happen a lot.
Whereas American English speakers, you are done speaking, then the
person starts speaking, or else you have transgressed on that
person's turn for sure.
Speaker 1 (35:39):
Should we take a break? Yeah, all right, we'll take
a break and finish up right after this.
Speaker 2 (35:44):
Stucks Who Stucks?
Speaker 1 (35:47):
You know it? Stucks.
Speaker 2 (35:50):
It's a great name.
Speaker 1 (35:50):
Yeah, that's the name of it.
Speaker 2 (35:53):
It's a great name.
Speaker 1 (35:55):
All right.
Speaker 2 (35:55):
Stucks met with an X so we talked about how
like all of these are scripts or templates like there's
(36:16):
you say something and there's a predictable response, and there's
actually you can boil it down to what are called families.
So like different types of conversations fall into different kinds
of families. The big ones that we've seen are reconstruction, moralizing,
and projection. Right. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (36:34):
Reconstruction you know obviously reconstructing or remembering and sharing something
about an event with somebody. The projective is looking to
the future. Yeah, it could be very specific like where
we going to dinner, or just more like sitting around
and chatting out loud about like the real future. And
then what was moral communication about good and good and bad?
Speaker 2 (36:57):
Yeah, it's more about tearing people down or complimenting people,
and we are we tend way more toward negativity, tearing
people down rather than building people up, and are tearing
people down types of genres are way more intricate and
sophisticated than are building people up or complimenting. Because we
(37:20):
have a negative bias as a species.
Speaker 1 (37:24):
That's depressing.
Speaker 2 (37:25):
So we'll I'll grow it one day, just give us
several tens of thousands of years.
Speaker 1 (37:31):
Yeah, So at the beginning we kind of talked to
I think we gave an example of how this might
be used, like on the job or something, and sort
of practical applications do involve that, for sure, Like you
might be hired by a company to come in and
consult when that company does like has kind of the
same kind of conversation over and over with people, like
if it's a surgical team or a call center. For sure,
(37:54):
whenever you hear this call may be recorded for training
and evaluation purposes, that that's probably what they're doing right there,
or maybe just judging their own employees and how they're
doing on the job.
Speaker 2 (38:04):
Right for sure. They've also found you can help people
get certain types of responses that you're looking for, Like
we talked about the emergency psychiatric hospital where they wanted
to get the person's name and then trick them into it.
There was a guy named John Heritage, unsurprisingly from UCLA,
(38:25):
who worked with doctors to figure out how they could
get patients to volunteer more problems that they needed help with.
And they found that doctors who say, is there anything
else that you need help with today? Apparently anything triggers
a response a predictable response, which is no. But if
you change anything to something that for some reason that
(38:47):
particular script or template opens up the possibility of sharing
more information and you would just never figure that out.
And this is one of the sterling examples of how
conversation and let's like actually help things change for the better.
Speaker 1 (39:04):
Yeah, that was well said.
Speaker 2 (39:05):
Thank you, wait to go John heritage at all.
Speaker 1 (39:10):
A woman named Elizabeth Stoko of the London School of
Economics and Political Science found this when she studied conversations
in a mediation service that people. It seems like in
this case, people just kind of wanted to get down
to brass tacks on what actually they did. They didn't
want to hear things like well we don't take sides
here and we don't judge. They really wanted to hear
(39:32):
just sort of the step by step process of mediation
and how it worked.
Speaker 2 (39:35):
Yes, she also works with companies that are trying to
install customer service bots and I was reading about that
it's not going very well yet. People hate customer service
bots and there's a there's agree. Yeah, I'm one of
them too. There's a question of okay, is the solution
making these bots way more human? Like should we insert
things like have a box or you know, like waffle
(40:00):
like a human does, and from what I saw, the
consensus is no, don't do that. Bots should be recognizable
and volunteer themselves as bots humans are humans. Keep the
two separate. And I don't know which direction it's going.
It does kind of seem like the whole thing's in
the quagmire currently. But I also did see that bots
(40:21):
are poised to start taking over the reins from human
conversation analysts and doing it themselves, and then training bots
how to be better at their job. So one bot
training another bot, right, that's from what I can tell
the future of conversation analysis.
Speaker 1 (40:40):
Yeah. I mean with the movie Her that now is
like kind of freakily ahead of its time with Scarlett Johansson.
I think in that situation, they definitely wanted to make
her way more human and do things like stumble words
and make mistakes. But if it's something like a customer
service spot right, you don't want that. I don't want
(41:03):
it at all. But I definitely don't want one that's
like I just give Starn't.
Speaker 2 (41:07):
I cute exactly? Lol. So let's get down to it, though, Chuck.
Here's the real reason we started talking about this. Do
men interrupt women as much as people think.
Speaker 1 (41:20):
Well, I mean, this has been something that they've studied
a lot since the seventies about you know, the roles
that plays, and it's been mixed results. There have been
studies that found that men interrupt women much more. There's
some that found there's not much of a difference. There
was a meta analysis from ninety eight that found that
ginger divide becomes more clearcut when looking at intrusive, specifically
(41:44):
intrusive interruptions as to cooperative interruptions. And that's kind of
what I took away is that it seems like when
men are interrupting, it is definitely more intrusive maybe mansplaining, sure,
I don't know, yah, and interrupt maybe just as often,
but it's much more of the cooperative type, right.
Speaker 2 (42:05):
And they chalk this up to different kinds of upbringings
where girls who become women are raised to essentially socialized
through communication, through conversation, so they become masters at it,
but they also develop expectations that men don't necessarily fulfill,
like cooperative interruptions, like oh, that's right, you don't say.
(42:29):
If a man doesn't do that, the women might feel
like she's not being listened to and Conversely, boys are
raised in a hierarchical manner where they might eventually come
to see listening as a form of submission, where instead
they're trying to dominate. They want to be the alpha male,
they want their puffy vest to be the coolest at
(42:51):
their kids football game, and so not only are they
not going to cooperatively interrupt, they're not even gonna listen,
and they may interrupt competitively too. So there's a lot
of at least anecdotal data to back that up for sure.
Speaker 1 (43:09):
Yeah, and I think they also found that menton are
interrupt more in groups than a one on one, and
that definitely seems to fall in line with, like, you know,
trying to establish the power position and like if you're
working together in a group. They did also find another
interesting correlation where in studies where the first author of
the study was a woman, they found bigger differences, and
(43:33):
that just could be that the male and female researchers
are coding the interruptions in a different way. Pretty interesting,
I thought, so too. What about generationally, Well.
Speaker 2 (43:45):
So apparently gen Z is just throwing a huge wrench
in the works. Remember we talked about how at the hospital,
the emergency hospital when somebody called and they said, my
name is May I help you? Right, the other person
felt obligated to give their name. It's not true like
when we were growing up, you would not feel like
you had to say, oh, well, I'm Josh Clark and
here's what I need from you. You just say, hey,
(44:08):
I need this or whatever. That's an example of a
generational change that took place. Now it's even more pronounced.
Apparently with gen Z there's something called the gen Z
stare where they're essentially pulling a Josh where you can
tell them a story and they just stare back at
you blankly at the end when it's their turn. And
apparently it's fairly disconcerting.
Speaker 1 (44:30):
Yeah, I've heard about it and then I was like,
what is that? Then I read up about it and
it is very disconcerting, as is the phone call thing,
which I haven't experienced because people don't call each other
much anymore. Yeah, but apparently gen Z when they answer
a phone, they don't go hello, They expect the other
person to talk for so apparently there's a gen Z
thing where they just answer the phone like this.
Speaker 2 (44:53):
Yeah, and then the other hello, or do you need help?
That's what I would say.
Speaker 1 (45:01):
Yeah, And I mean, I guess I've definitely witnessed the
gen z stare with our friends' kids here and there
to where you're just like, boy, I just like I
must be the least interesting human on earth because they're
just blankly looking at me.
Speaker 2 (45:16):
Yeah. Yeah. Or you can look at it the other
way and be like, yeah, good talking to you. I'll
see you later.
Speaker 1 (45:22):
Yeah. But I've also found, especially when you're around teenagers,
like your friends that have teenage kids, like just don't
even you know, maybe say something nice and hello, but
don't try to strike up a conversation. They don't want
to talk to you. No, just don't, I think, just
move along.
Speaker 2 (45:38):
That's been true since Tuck Tuck was a teenager, you
know what I mean.
Speaker 1 (45:42):
You know what I usually do. I'll go like, Ye're like, oh, hey,
how's it going. How's school going this year? Oh? Good, good,
glad to hear it, and I'll just walk away like
a nice thing to say, and then just end it.
Speaker 2 (45:53):
You don't follow up with like, are you really anxious
when you wake up in the morning before school?
Speaker 1 (45:59):
No, no, no, no one wants to hear from an adult.
If you're at a certain age.
Speaker 2 (46:04):
Okay, I'm going to have to rethink my approach. Then.
Speaker 1 (46:07):
Do you remember when you were a kid like I
don't remember even having conversations with adults?
Speaker 2 (46:12):
Oh yeah, no, absolutely not. You know, I'm totally kidding
this in everything I'm saying, right, Oh yeah, yeah, no,
I remember that it was very intimidating to talk to
an adult, let alone having very little in common.
Speaker 1 (46:25):
Yeah, and they didn't want to talk to us.
Speaker 2 (46:26):
No, No, for sure.
Speaker 1 (46:28):
Gen X was famously ignored by most adults.
Speaker 2 (46:31):
Yeah, very famous. Just ask Douglas Copelan.
Speaker 1 (46:35):
Who's that.
Speaker 2 (46:36):
He's the guy who wrote gen X.
Speaker 1 (46:38):
Oh? Okay, was that a book? Famous book?
Speaker 2 (46:40):
Yes? I believe he's the one who coined the term.
Speaker 1 (46:43):
Oh you should read it.
Speaker 2 (46:45):
It's good. It's a quick read. It's not like an
essay or anything like that. It's his story about three
gen xers and just going through life over I think,
just the course of a few days.
Speaker 1 (46:56):
I've been a reading fool lately. I'll put it on
the list.
Speaker 2 (46:58):
Nice. I just started in, and I'll bet I regret
ever announcing it publicly.
Speaker 1 (47:03):
Because that David Foster Waller.
Speaker 2 (47:06):
Yes, and I love that guy. But this is a
slog already.
Speaker 1 (47:10):
Yeah, I'm finishing. I just finished the bonobook that I
had put down like a year ago, and I am
almost done with the Don Felder of the Eagles. Good lord.
You might be asking why would you read that? It's
specifically because I used to love the Eagles and he
apparently the book was just really bitchy.
Speaker 2 (47:32):
Oh okay, yeah, I could say.
Speaker 1 (47:34):
I was like, Ooh, I want to read this because
he's like, he hates those guys, so let me read this.
Speaker 2 (47:37):
Did Matthew Modine recommend you read it in his diary
about Full Metal Jacket?
Speaker 1 (47:43):
No, that's my bathroom book. So I've just been slow
rolling that one.
Speaker 2 (47:46):
Gotcha. I don't think you should use words like slow
rolling when you talk about being in the bathroom.
Speaker 1 (47:52):
Good point.
Speaker 2 (47:53):
Well, I think we just brought about listener mail, whether
we like it or not, don't you.
Speaker 1 (48:00):
That's right. This is not a really correction, just sort
of maybe a gentle reminder about our history of orthodonture.
I feel like we might have focused a little too
much on appearance this from erin. Hey, guys, appreciate the
depth of curiosity you bring to each topic, and I
wanted to offer an update regarding orthodontia, it's not just
about appearance anymore. The field has evolved significantly in current
research shows that strong connection between jaw and bite alignment
(48:23):
and conditions like sleep, apnea, ADHD, and TMJ dysfunction, which
is of course totally true. While some of these links
were suspected years ago, orthodonic treatment today is increasingly focused
on preventing or mitigating these issues and the ute before
they become chronic. On a personal note, my journey with
TMJ dysfunction led me down the path of exploring treatment options,
(48:44):
and after years of discomfort, I found relief through invisil line.
It not only helped with my smile, realign my bite
and significantly reduce my TMJ symptoms and open my eyes
to the broader health benefits of orthodonic care. And that
is warm regards from Aaron. Very nice email Aaron, and
visit right.
Speaker 2 (49:03):
Yeah exactly, thanks a lot, Erin. I'm really glad Erin
with an E or a double A or one that's
E R I N. Thanks a lot, Aaron. I'm glad
that you were able to take care of your TMJ.
I can't imagine that that's a fun chronic condition. You know,
if you got rid of a condition that you're happy about,
we want to hear about that, or for whatever reason
(49:23):
you want to write in. You can send us an
email send it off to stuff podcast at iHeartRadio dot com.
Speaker 1 (49:32):
Stuff you Should Know is a production of iHeartRadio. For
more podcasts my heart Radio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Stuff You Should Know News
Hosts And Creators
Chuck Bryant
Josh Clark
Show Links
AboutOrder Our BookStoreSYSK ArmyRSSPopular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and current events with intelligence and humor. From the border crisis, to the madness of cancel culture and far-left missteps, Clay and Buck guide listeners through the latest headlines and hot topics with fun and entertaining conversations and opinions.