|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: How much is there to talk about, really?
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Another morning, another hotel... I sit down for breakfast to a stream of Chinese emerging from the couple at the next table. Well from one of them. I assure you that there is no relevance to the fact that it was Chinese, I've experienced the like in many languages, including my own. The entire 20 minutes I had breakfast this stream of Chinese would essentially not stop. It was very rapid, giving it the same quality of noise emerging from a blowdryer, just a bit more modulated. The partner was largely contributing an affirmative "uhn", with a fairly slow but quite regular beat - perhaps once every 20-30 seconds. Occasionally however there would be a sentence, interrupting the stream. It was entertaining to see how long the partner could speak before the stream took over again. Not long, that's for sure. When I left for my room, it was still to a rapid stream of Chinese... I should mention that there was no sign of particular agitation or conflict, and no sign of particular disagreement either. Best I could tell, for them it was a normal, mildly pleasant morning chat (albeit a one-sided one).
Now, feel free to discuss the phenomenon of "motor mouth" as such. I am however more interested in the deeper question how much we really need to talk about this world. Where "need" is not meant just in a "practical" sense, but also a "psychological" one. What must be spoken, how often and long, and why? And why are there such crass differences in opinion about that, which seem to have considerable gender bias? (I studiously avoided assigning a gender to the Chinese "motor mouth" above. No prizes for guessing though. In my case at least, prejudice corresponds pretty much 100% to experience.)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
One of my favourite defences against the dark arts of talking to much is engendering in myself a encyclopaedic knowledge of all matters, a studious demeanour and a willingness to crush the insecure and weak.
The minute they pause for breath I unleash my gargantuan wisdom on them, not stopping until they wither and leave me alone to my morning coffee.
It is, of course, very annoying when (despite speaking seven languages fluently) I cannot do my thing because they are gibbering away in some vile tongue.
Fly Safe, Pyx_e
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
A lot of it is phatic communion, that is, essentially meaningless stuff, which keeps the bond intact between people.
In your Chinese example, the guy is doing the right thing though, and in fact, he probably likes it. It's kind of comforting.
[ 20. September 2012, 08:19: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
Seems to me it is very difficult to know what is happening in another language, conceivably several things could be happening.
But still, some people think only by vocalising. In some ways it doesn't matter what they're talking about.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Some people process information verbally - much, much easier than internally. This is why it's good to have time for discussion and paired work in schools. Some children learn far better if they verbalise their thoughts and ideas.
I am one of them.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PerkyEars
slightly distracted
# 9577
|
Posted
Good question. Probably we need to speak (or type) less than we do.
There's exhortations to avoid idle talk in The Imitation of Christ and in Ignatius' Spiritual Exercises. I'm pretty sure it's in Paul somewhere too but I don't have time to look it up. I've never seen a modern evangelical author writing about it, so perhaps this is an aspect of holiness we have neglected in some churches today.
I'm guessing that phatic communication to maintain bonds covers a number of different things. If we're maintaining bonds by moaning with those who moan, or worse by slagging off common enemies, that's probably not good, even though it maintains relationships! If we're talking more caringly, creatively and positively that's perhaps different.
Posts: 532 | From: Bristol | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Silence is a scary thing.
There is so much emphasis on communication - especially in marriage - that we can forget that sometimes just being together is communication enough. Sometimes zipping it is the best policy in certain situations, but silence is embarrassing and unnerving: it gives the impression that our lives are empty and we have "no news" - nothing interesting going on in our lives to spout about. And so someone pipes up, feeling obliged to say something - just anything - and that's when stupid and even offensive comments emerge.
Monks who take a vow of silence might just be on to something...
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Is it self-refuting to talk about - and recommend - silence?
Please feel free to respond in John Cage fashion.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And why are there such crass differences in opinion about that, which seem to have considerable gender bias?
I'm not sure what you mean by "crass" - maybe just "large"?
quote:
(I studiously avoided assigning a gender to the Chinese "motor mouth" above. No prizes for guessing though. In my case at least, prejudice corresponds pretty much 100% to experience.)
You may just be establishing a 100% correspondence between your own prejudice and the prevalent stereotype. A study published in Science and widely reported in the press a few years ago found this to be unsupported:
quote:
Men showed a slightly wider variability in words uttered, and boasted both the most economical speaker (roughly 500 words daily) and the most verbose yapping at a whopping 47,000 words a day. But in the end, the sexes came out just about even in the daily averages: women at 16,215 words and men at 15,669.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
It is possible that the speaker IngoB heard was giving minor useful information about things that affected their day-to-day lives, or information about what was happening to friends or relatives.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
One of my clients simply cannot internalize any information until he repeats it aloud, usually several times in several different ways. He is a motor-mouth. It helps him somewhat to have an "audience" for his endless yakking, but it isn't essential. I have observed him when he has reason to believe he's alone; he talks aloud then, and talks very fast.
It's his way of thinking. He happens to do it out loud.
It also drives me (and many of the people who work with him) absolutely crazy.
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
My experience is that this phenomenon varies a lot from culture to culture.
For example, I have always known certain individuals from certain parts of the world who had a reputation for engaging in long-winded discourses - learned-sounding but exhausting. Then I had the privilege of going to the place they were from, and encountered numerous individuals with that same capacity. I was amused because a quality that I had always thought was personal seems to have turned out to be cultural.
By contrast, having spent considerable time in West Africa, I have often noted to myself with relief that I never seem to encounter people there who talk too much. Silence is very common.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
The fast speed at which they seem to talk is probably a subjective feeling held by those who don't understand the language. Our brain automatically tries to decode but it seems too fast for us because we can't.
Sitting on a bus, trying to read, i sometimes think, 'I wish they'd stop jabbering away and give me some peace.' I realise this is racist but it is my gut reaction.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
For my first second degree (I am onto the third one at present), we had in the glass a significant proportion of Sri Lankan students. This caused language problems. At one point the English students were on the point of asking whether the Sri Lankan students would mind speaking English slower so we could understand what they were saying.
I have always assumed that the cause was that their native tongue was more polysyllabic than English and they therefore spoke normally at a higher rate of syllables per second. When speaking English they tried to keep up this rate. This meant that they were actually saying things a lot faster than most English people do, possibly than they do and we were not keeping up.
I have no way of knowing if this is true.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
It is possible that the speaker IngoB heard was giving minor useful information about things that affected their day-to-day lives, or information about what was happening to friends or relatives.
Moo
It's much more likely that (s)he was just rabbitting on and on. Even useful information can be delivered succinctly.
I wish people who speak too fast and/or shout in a monotone would realise that some of us can't absorb information that is machine gunned at us and so just switch off.
I shan't mention any names but there are people in the public ear who are guilty of this bad failing.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I have always assumed that the cause was that their native tongue was more polysyllabic than English and they therefore spoke normally at a higher rate of syllables per second. When speaking English they tried to keep up this rate. This meant that they were actually saying things a lot faster than most English people do, possibly than they do and we were not keeping up.
I have no way of knowing if this is true.
Jengie
Maybe the tone also? I find it takes a while to get my 'ear in' to South East Asian English.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
BessLane
Shipmate
# 15176
|
Posted
It amazes me how many people are truly uncomfortable with companionable silence. I see folks (both men and women) everyday who seem to need to fill up the air with noise of their own making. I have also discovered that much of their talk consists of the same thing they said the day before, and the day before that, etc. It might just be a function of the alcohol involved, but most of the talkative people I encounter can't actually carry on a conversation, they just want to talk. Luckily, I'm the opposite, I listen, so it works out for them. Although there are days I think that if I heard such-and-such a story one more time, I'm going to run screaming out the door.
--------------------
It's all on me and I won't tell it.
formerly BessHiggs
Posts: 1388 | From: Yorkville, TN | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lord Jestocost
Shipmate
# 12909
|
Posted
My grandmother was raised in an environment where the purpose of conversation was to dominate. Any interruption to other people, any non sequitur was permitted as long as it was done with skill and brought the focus of attention back to the speaker. It was sport.
It worked when she was surrounded by ladies of similar age and background, who could give as good as they got. It was misery for people not brought up in the rules, like me. I still remember the sinking feeling of her coming to the end of a 20 minute anecdote and then realising she had only been laying the groundwork intended to help me understand the really important anecdote that was to follow.
Posts: 761 | From: The Instrumentality of Man | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I am however more interested in the deeper question how much we really need to talk about this world. Where "need" is not meant just in a "practical" sense, but also a "psychological" one. What must be spoken, how often and long, and why? And why are there such crass differences in opinion about that, which seem to have considerable gender bias? (I studiously avoided assigning a gender to the Chinese "motor mouth" above. No prizes for guessing though. In my case at least, prejudice corresponds pretty much 100% to experience.)
Wow. The sexism here is breathtaking. My experience is that some men can and do run their mouths just as much as some women.
How on earth would you measure "need" to talk?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
I'd add to that last question - how on earth do you measure "need" to talk - an additional one: in order to accomplish what?
Strictly speaking, there is no need to talk as long as there is no need to communicate certain information or communicate at all (I'm not talking to billions of people on the planet right this second). Are you asking how much "need" there is to talk in order to maintain a romantic relationship? Wouldn't that vary depending on the participants in the relationship and how they both process information and receive information from others? Are you defining "talk" as verbal communication (such that two deaf people who talk using sign language would be excluded from the population you're interested in discussing)? Can you give a little more information on what you'd like to discuss?
My short answer to the OP would be to change the terms: human beings have the need to communicate and to communicate with other human beings about the world in one form or another, but there is no "need" for human beings to do so verbally, although many show a strong preference for that form of communication.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
(I studiously avoided assigning a gender to the Chinese "motor mouth" above. No prizes for guessing though. In my case at least, prejudice corresponds pretty much 100% to experience.)
I suspect you only notice things which confirm your prejudice.
[ 20. September 2012, 19:21: Message edited by: Firenze ]
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Unfortunately, all too much conversation seems not to involve any actual communication at all.
Admittedly IngoB's description may be a bit biased. It is also not fair or reasonable for me to evaluate a relationship between two people I've never met, and who speak a language I do not know. What follows may not be true of them at all.
One does encounter relationships in which one or the other party, or even both of them, seems to be ensuring that not much actual exchange appears to be taking place. From observation, motor-mouthing is a very effective and widely used way of doing this. For one thing, it is an easy way to hide from oneself the fact that one is someone who never listens.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
FWIW, I typeset Vietnamese / English bilingual materials for some years, and noticed that the Vietnamese text always ran at least 50 % (often more) in length over the English. I think this was due to the fact that, though it is a monosyllabic language (at least in theory)(as Chinese is!), the reality is that plenty of words are double or triple compounds (e.g. "Thuong De" or "Duc Chua Troi" where we might simply say "God" or "Lord."
Extra space on paper may translate into extra time while speaking--unless you race through. Just sayin'.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
I suspect you only notice things which confirm your prejudice.
A most convenient accusation, since I cannot possibly refute it.
Anyway, as for the only instance of data mentioned upthread, two key points need to be mentioned. First, even before I followed the link, I guessed that like the vast majority of studies generalising about "human behaviour", it would be based entirely on that one subspecies of mankind which is conveniently available: the common university student, homo studiensis. To what degree an undergraduate is a "normal" representative of the human species will however remain an unresolved mystery for the foreseeable future, since in order to answer that question one would have to study something else but university students. And that is expensive, slow and painful, and hence won't lead to the kind of paper churn out which will land you in Science.
Second, the "motor mouth" phenomenon I was talking about wasn't simply about "talking a lot" anyhow. It was about talking a lot in a particular setting, with a particular partner. It is entirely possible, at least theoretically, that after getting up from the breakfast table the "motor mouth" I encountered would hardly utter a word for the rest of the day. In which case they would end up with quite normal average. (Indeed, if you think about this a bit more, then you will wonder whether the sampling method employed in the Science study makes any sense whatsoever. Some people will produce a fairly steady stream of words, think of a shop assistant. Other people will have peaks of high activity, separated by long silences. The method employed may give a reasonable estimate of the former, but is bound to fail for the latter.)
While in my own experience this particular kind of "couple talk" is indeed gender-specific, and while having a gender myself means that I tend to prefer one side over the other, I actually wasn't thinking about that other than in this sense: how curious it is that there could be different opinions about this. What I am really interested in is that one can be of such different opinions how much there is to talk about the same world.That in certain circumstances that difference is - in my experience - associated with gender, really is quite secondary.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... And why are there such crass differences in opinion about that, which seem to have considerable gender bias? (I studiously avoided assigning a gender to the Chinese "motor mouth" above. No prizes for guessing though. In my case at least, prejudice corresponds pretty much 100% to experience.)
Yeah, I know what you mean. Academics seem to have the spiritual gift of speaking for HOURS without actually saying anything. It makes taking minutes at meetings a nightmare. We sometimes joke that our staff meetings are in lecture format. ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif) And they're mostly men.
There's also experimental evidence that in mixed groups, women generally speak less than men. How can you be sure that your IME isn't just confirmation bias or a collection of sexist and racist stereotypes?
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barefoot Friar
Ship's Shoeless Brother
# 13100
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
FWIW, I typeset Vietnamese / English bilingual materials for some years, and noticed that the Vietnamese text always ran at least 50 % (often more) in length over the English. I think this was due to the fact that, though it is a monosyllabic language (at least in theory)(as Chinese is!), the reality is that plenty of words are double or triple compounds (e.g. "Thuong De" or "Duc Chua Troi" where we might simply say "God" or "Lord."
Extra space on paper may translate into extra time while speaking--unless you race through. Just sayin'.
That's an interesting point, and not one I would have immediately realized.
Some people do indeed think out loud. My brother is one who does; he verbalizes pretty much everything that pops into his mind. I, on the other hand, am quiet more than I speak, with the exception of Sunday mornings. I pretend to be extroverted on Sundays.
Are people who think aloud auditory learners? Do they find silence to be oppressive?
ETA: And how can those of us who prefer silence or quiet learn to cope with people who seemingly need to verbalize most or all of their thoughts?
[ 21. September 2012, 00:29: Message edited by: Barefoot Friar ]
--------------------
Do your little bit of good where you are; its those little bits of good put together that overwhelm the world. -- Desmond Tutu
Posts: 1621 | From: Warrior Mountains | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Anyway, as for the only instance of data mentioned upthread, two key points need to be mentioned. First, even before I followed the link, I guessed that like the vast majority of studies generalising about "human behaviour", it would be based entirely on that one subspecies of mankind which is conveniently available: the common university student, homo studiensis. To what degree an undergraduate is a "normal" representative of the human species will however remain an unresolved mystery for the foreseeable future, since in order to answer that question one would have to study something else but university students. And that is expensive, slow and painful, and hence won't lead to the kind of paper churn out which will land you in Science.
That's an awful lot of ungrateful complaining for someone who has so far provided exactly zero data of his own. Also a nice contrast of truly careful, conscientious researchers with those shameless hussies who publish prolifically and get into high impact journals. Glad to hear you're keepin' it real, IngoB.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
i'm finding myself more and more irritated by strangers who motor on near me when I'm quietly eating or reading. It's more aggravating when it's in a foreign language or on a cell phone.
I see this as a change in me rather than a prevalance of the garroulous and I see a descent into a cranky old age where I become the hermit in the folly.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The fast speed at which they seem to talk is probably a subjective feeling held by those who don't understand the language. Our brain automatically tries to decode but it seems too fast for us because we can't.
The brain does not know the rythym of the language, does not know the difference between syllables and words, so cannot judge the "speed" of the speech.
As for the gender bias in the OP, my experience is different than the perception presented.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I am however more interested in the deeper question how much we really need to talk about this world. Where "need" is not meant just in a "practical" sense, but also a "psychological" one. What must be spoken, how often and long, and why? And why are there such crass differences in opinion about that, which seem to have considerable gender bias? (I studiously avoided assigning a gender to the Chinese "motor mouth" above. No prizes for guessing though. In my case at least, prejudice corresponds pretty much 100% to experience.)
Wow. The sexism here is breathtaking. My experience is that some men can and do run their mouths just as much as some women.
How on earth would you measure "need" to talk?
[Disclaimer: I am female].
Heh. I'm currently seconded until December (I work at a University) into what ought to have been my dream job, but I will not seek to extend it, although they have intimated there will be an offer, because I have to sit next to the-most-awful sufferer of verbal diahorrea there has ever been. She really does verbalise everything, including (I'm not joking) 'I really need to do a wee', followed a few minutes later by 'Oh God, why won't this phone stop ringing? I SO need to do a wee!'.
Instead, I have decided to take up (if it's still on offer) a role which would involve working closely with the second-most-talkative person of my experience, who is male, and who some people actually hide from when they see him coming (again, not joking). I figure it shouldn't be quite as bad because 1.) I wouldn't actually be parked in his office, as there is no room, so it wouldn't be absolutely continuous, and 2.) I have known him to occasionally talk about topics which are interesting, in contrast to my current cubicle-mate...
--------------------
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused. -- Dafyd --
Posts: 993 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
This is what some merciful servant of God invented ear plugs for.
I find myself in the opposite state--we used to have the occasional friendly hum of conversation at a distance in my workplace, but now you'd swear we've been taken over by the Trappists. Every twitch of the ventilation system is plainly noticed. And I find myself unable to concentrate under those circs. Better a low hum of indistinguishable sound than twitch<CRANK!>snap<WHOOSH and someone's cellphone going off like a bomb in the next cube.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barefoot Friar
Ship's Shoeless Brother
# 13100
|
Posted
I would find that mostly heavenly, Lamb Chopped.
--------------------
Do your little bit of good where you are; its those little bits of good put together that overwhelm the world. -- Desmond Tutu
Posts: 1621 | From: Warrior Mountains | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
Most of the motor mouths I come in contact with are men and they have careers in sales or consulting. They never shut up and the hardly pause for a breath. They also laugh at their own jokes; dreadful.
I am an artist and so I regularly spend 8 hours a day without speaking to anyone. My husband, who has a high pressure engineering career, will sometimes come sit in the studio while I work and we don't say a thing.
I think many motor mouths are trying to drown out the voices in their heads.
Hey I finally made 1000 posts only took seven years. I don't type much either.
[ 21. September 2012, 13:25: Message edited by: art dunce ]
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The fast speed at which they seem to talk is probably a subjective feeling held by those who don't understand the language. Our brain automatically tries to decode but it seems too fast for us because we can't.
The brain does not know the rythym of the language, does not know the difference between syllables and words, so cannot judge the "speed" of the speech.
Yes, thank you. That explains perfectly what i was inadequately trying to say.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Another morning, another hotel... I sit down for breakfast to a stream of Chinese emerging from the couple at the next table.
It's worth considering the circumstances in which this irritation occurs.
For me, I find this phenomenon most irritating when I myself am tired, having listened non-stop to other people speaking for hours at a stretch
without having opportunities to respond (trainings, lectures, too-many-back-to-back-visits-with-too-many-very-verbal-clients, etc.)
For me too, it's sometimes a symptom that I'm sliding into one of my seasonal depressive states.
It's also a fairly normal reaction to a social situation from which one is being actively excluded by virtue of not understanding the language and not being able to respond through normal conventions of courtesy, yet while being more-or-less forced to overhear (and hence not allowed to simply drift into one's own reflections).
You can't very well say "Shut your row" to people you're not officially supposed to be listening to.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
Huh. A lot of the time I have no problem tuning out other people's talk as background noise (especially if its in a foreign language).
More problematic for me are people who babble incessantly, say something important thirty minutes in, and actually expect me to register and respond/act on that, in spite of my having told them that lengthy periods of pure auditory input is unlikely to be an effective communication strategy when I'm involved.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
(I studiously avoided assigning a gender to the Chinese "motor mouth" above. No prizes for guessing though. In my case at least, prejudice corresponds pretty much 100% to experience.)
You went through constructing that entire OP just to ask the question why do women - in your 100% experience - talk too much? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
Joining Ingo for some non-PC thought... the tendency for endless chatter as a way of affirming one's existence to oneself and the world has cultural roots. Ingo, next time you attend a conference try to get some Africans (of either gender) into your workshop.
About the undeniable woman-chatter-phenomenon : It's just that in some national cultures (China is one of them) the communications subculture of men is different from that of women. Similar thing in the UK: You must have noticed how British females tend towards high-pitched, shrieking intonations, something which you don't get from the males.
And to add some more fuel to the fire, may I suggest that depth of thought is inversely proportional to pitch and frequency of utterings...
(BTW I'm fully prepared to take the expected flak from the corners of feminists and PC freaks now...I'm hiding at an unknown location...
![[Razz]](tongue.gif) )
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
About the undeniable woman-chatter-phenomenon : It's just that in some national cultures (China is one of them) the communications subculture of men is different from that of women. Similar thing in the UK: You must have noticed how British females tend towards high-pitched, shrieking intonations, something which you don't get from the males.
I'd add that in the US, the communications subculture of the middle class is very different to that of the working class, with the middle class (on the whole) viewing verbal communication and auditory processing as superior to other forms of communication.
quote:
And to add some more fuel to the fire, may I suggest that depth of thought is inversely proportional to pitch and frequency of utterings...
Douglas Adams: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe:
quote:
“It is worth repeating at this point the theories that Ford had come up with, on his first encounter with human beings, to account for their peculiar habit of continually stating and restating the very very obvious, as in "It's a nice day," or "You're very tall," or "So this is it, we're going to die."
His first theory was that if human beings didn't keep exercising their lips, their mouths probably shriveled up.
After a few months of observation he had come up with a second theory, which was this--"If human beings don't keep exercising their lips, their brains start working.”
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
(BTW I'm fully prepared to take the expected flak from the corners of feminists and PC freaks now...I'm hiding at an unknown location...
)
Good idea. That way you won't have to provide evidence support the stereotypes masquerading as assertions in your post.
ETA: saysay, you could also do with some evidence for what you claim. Whole classes of people all talk the same amount?
[ 21. September 2012, 19:26: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
Sexism, racism and now classism, this is turning into a thread only Andrew "Dice" Clay could love.
On the issue of why people talk it appears men enjoy gossip more than women.
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Academics seem to have the spiritual gift of speaking for HOURS without actually saying anything.
Sure, the chattering class excels at that.
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
How can you be sure that your IME isn't just confirmation bias or a collection of sexist and racist stereotypes?
That's a really silly question to ask. Once you start to question the very memories that you have, all is possible.
Now, once more with feeling: I didn't actually make any claim about women generally speaking more than men. I observed a couple (of young middle age) interacting in a particular way, a fairly unusual and striking one. I had seen this particular way before, perhaps a handful of times. Every single time I had seen it, it was with the same gender distribution. That gender distribution happens to align with common stereotypes. That's all, really.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
That's an awful lot of ungrateful complaining for someone who has so far provided exactly zero data of his own. Also a nice contrast of truly careful, conscientious researchers with those shameless hussies who publish prolifically and get into high impact journals. Glad to hear you're keepin' it real, IngoB.
First, and most notably, you have nothing to say concerning my two substantial points of critique of those results in Science. I find this quite typical for people who wish to borrow authority to score cheap points. Second, I actually did provide data. Certainly data entirely appropriate to the questions I was actually asking.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The brain does not know the rythym of the language, does not know the difference between syllables and words, so cannot judge the "speed" of the speech.
I simply doubt this absolute statement on general principles. For one thing, I was quite capable of noting that the non-motor-mouth was talking considerably slower in his occasional responses. Furthermore, speaking comes with specialised breathing patterns and speech rhythms are typically timed with gesticulation. Also, see this, page 544.
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
You went through constructing that entire OP just to ask the question why do women - in your 100% experience - talk too much?
Nope. As I said: "I am however more interested in the deeper question how much we really need to talk about this world. Where "need" is not meant just in a "practical" sense, but also a "psychological" one. What must be spoken, how often and long, and why?" The gender thing was an afterthought, of interest simply because it was systematic in my experience. Unfortunately, as soon as you mention anything to do with "gender", conversation about all else must cease.
So let me repeat this:
I am however more interested in the deeper question how much we really need to talk about this world. Where "need" is not meant just in a "practical" sense, but also a "psychological" one. What must be spoken, how often and long, and why?
Any takers for that question then?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Now, once more with feeling: I didn't actually make any claim about women generally speaking more than men.
Except for this one:
quote:
What must be spoken, how often and long, and why? And why are there such crass differences in opinion about that, which seem to have considerable gender bias? (I studiously avoided assigning a gender to the Chinese "motor mouth" above. No prizes for guessing though. In my case at least, prejudice corresponds pretty much 100% to experience.)
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Unfortunately, as soon as you mention anything to do with "gender", conversation about all else must cease.
When you make a blatantly sexist statement, yes, that's exactly what happens.
quote:
I am however more interested in the deeper question how much we really need to talk about this world. Where "need" is not meant just in a "practical" sense, but also a "psychological" one. What must be spoken, how often and long, and why?
Any takers for that question then?
You were wrong, and you refuse to acknowledge it, and no, I'm not going to let it go. It's bullshit, and until you recognize it and do something about it, there really can't be other conversation.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Banner Lady
Ship's Ensign
# 10505
|
Posted
I suspect that most people are aural learners, and a much smaller proportion are visual learners. Like art dunce, I too can spend a whole day doing creative stuff in silence - it is how I love to commune with God. Torture, for me, is a house filled with constant noise. As my house is rarely free of people, I have taken to getting up early and staying up late into the night just so I can have my 'wholly' time. Time wholly for myself, selfish shit that I am. But I would go insane without it.
When my MiL comes to stay, she fills up every minute with chatter. Silence is extremely threatening to her. A long car drive with us is extremely distressing for her, as my husband and I are quite happy with companionable silence for hours. We usually each have robust internal dialogues going on as we think through various issues or projects, or use the time to pray. No music necessary. No running commentary necessary. But by the level of decibels coming out of almost every car we pass on the road, I would say we are probably very much in the minority.
And yes, of course we make an effort to talk with her and put her at ease, but after attacking the same topic in every conceivable way, she then begins all over again as if we'd never discussed this before. It drives me nuts, because I know its not alzheimers, just airfill.
For non-aural people, this is exhausting IMHO. I would love some suggestions on ways to cope with endless meaningless talk without it being obvious
my brain is running away to hide and my eyes are glazing over.
--------------------
Women in the church are not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be enjoyed.
Posts: 7080 | From: Canberra Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
About the undeniable woman-chatter-phenomenon : It's just that in some national cultures (China is one of them) the communications subculture of men is different from that of women. Similar thing in the UK: You must have noticed how British females tend towards high-pitched, shrieking intonations, something which you don't get from the males.
No I haven't noticed that. I notice that women's voices are in general approximately a good half-octave or more above the register of men's voices which one would naturally expect. Unsurprisingly, this means when a woman or group of women make loud noises these noises are higher pitched than the noises men would make. Listening to a mainly female crowd cheering a sports game eg, has a very different sound to a group of mainly blokes. As a generalism, it may well be true that women are more comfortable about chatty kinds of conversation. But I would say I've equally been as cornered by the gentleman of the species as by the lady, when it comes to relentless, inconsequential spiel.
quote:
And to add some more fuel to the fire, may I suggest that depth of thought is inversely proportional to pitch and frequency of utterings...
You can suggest it, but don't expect to be taken seriously. A higher-pitched voice (did you mean a woman's voice, given your previous comment?) does not necessarily mean a deeper or shallower thought behind the sentiment. There's a lot more to what a person's saying than the pitch of their voice or the number of times they say a thing. I think it would be safer to suggest that often people who just chatter on and on can be difficult to listen to, or comprehend, sometimes even when they do speak sense.
Unlike IngoB, whose 100% experience of this, apparently, has been with women, I've come across both women and men who are inclined to do this. Sometimes, I think, it's nervousness, or feeling out of depth, or in some cases this may well represent a lack of focus, being self-absorbed, or no ability or skill in one to one communication.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
What Anselmina said.
And its not only not undeniable its quite likely not even true.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
To oppose anecdote to anecdote, it's always men I dread being cornered by at coffee hour. But I suspect a cultural reason for the predominance of male motormouths in my church--the women are strongly socialized to triplecheck the impression they're making with their communication when talking to someone they perceive to be of higher rank (yeah, right) and many men are accustomed to rank themselves and don't do this check.
But things even out among intimates.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
What Anselmina said.
And its not only not undeniable its quite likely not even true.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
