Ship of Fools: How much is there to talk about, really?

Thread: How much is there to talk about, really? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023879

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

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.)

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

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

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

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 ]

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

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.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

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]

Posted by PerkyEars (# 9577) on :

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.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

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...

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

Is it self-refuting to talk about - and recommend - silence?

Please feel free to respond in John Cage fashion.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

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.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

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

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

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.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

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.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

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.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

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

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

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.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

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.

Posted by BessHiggs (# 15176) on :

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.

Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :

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.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

Somewhat relevant: We are a storytelling species.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

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?

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

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.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

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 ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

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.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

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'.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

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.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

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]

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?

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

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 ]

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

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.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

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.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

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.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

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...

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

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.

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

I would find that mostly heavenly, Lamb Chopped.

Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :

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 ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

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.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

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.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

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.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

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]

Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :

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]

)

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

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.”

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

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 ]

Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :

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.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

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?

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

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.

Posted by Banner Lady (# 10505) on :

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.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

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.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

What Anselmina said.

And its not only not undeniable its quite likely not even true.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

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.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

What Anselmina said.

And its not only not undeniable its quite likely not even true.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

I have to confess that, when it comes to the title of this thread, I've asked this question in my own head. (I'm staying out of the gender-sexism-who-talks-too-much debate for now).

And despite having asked this question in my own head (How much is there to talk about, really?), I have to say it peeves me (yes, even when I'm the one asking that question).

Because here's what the question actually seems to come down to:

"How on earth could anybody possibly have so much to say? Surely this is all blindingly obvious trivia which nobody with my kind of superior mentality could possibly ever find worthy of idle conjecture, much less actually uttering aloud."

You know what, IngoB? Different people find different things worth saying, and have different needs for saying them.

Sorry for being so blindingly obvious, and taking such inordinate amounts of space to do so.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

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? ,,,

Well, then, maybe it wasn't helpful to precede what is actually a very interesting question with a racist, sexist anecdote.

I think it's pretty safe to say that everybody talks too much and listens too little. Or instead of listening, we're waiting to talk. One of my mother's favourite expressions was "Close your mouth and open your eyes." How to change that habit is the really interesting and potentially more useful question.

I've found remaining aware of my breathing while listening very helpful, as well as not responding immediately. I've also noticed that when I listen carefully, I seem to speak more articulately, which is tremendously useful in stressful situations. Stephen Covey's 5th habit is "Seek First to Understand, Then to be Understood."

As for listening to other people's conversations in public places, I find it always interesting, sometimes hilarious, and occasionally infuriating. It's street theatre. Cell phones are a GOLD MINE. It's fun to make up stories about the person / people having the conversation based on what we hear. Honestly, though, we really don't have a clue and it would be silly to judge strangers or make vast generalizations based on snippets of conversation; even more so if we don't understand the language.

I think my all-time favourite overheard-snippet is a cell phone user saying "And I even wore matching underwear!" That, apparently, was a conversation that had to happen at that moment, on a crowded bus, on the way to school in the morning. [Killing me]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Okay, so I'll make an attempt to look past the cowpat. I think the problem, IngoB, is that you conceive of talk as having a different purpose than many people do. For you (and largely for me, and other nerds) talking is primarily about imparting knowledge and information, or one's opinions on same. Since there is a limited amount of information that is really relevant to a situation at any given time, we tend to say something and then shut up.

But for other people, talking is all about social and emotional connection. That stream of chatter about irrelevant whatsits is really saying, "I'm here, and you're here, and I'm glad of that." Sometimes it's saying, "I wish you would pay more attention to me." Sometimes it's "I want to be closer to you emotionally." Sometimes it's just plain "I want you to like and maybe admire me."

The trouble comes when you match up a talker of that sort and a listener of the first sort. The talker gets frustrated and the listener can't understand what the talker is banging on about.

Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :

I have found, after years of being a LEM, that the best way for me to listen is to put one finger over my lips as they speak . It reminds me to zip it and signals to the listener that my lips are sealed. I find that Anglos speak slowly and it helps me to not get impatient.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

IngoB:

quote:
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.

Change the language to English and this could be my husband and me at almost any meal, anywhere, any day. He's the talker, I'm the "uhn." This dynamic began when we were dating and he would come in and sit down and talk for about 30 minutes before we left for our date. Years later, during one period, we both met daily after work and went to the same restaurant where I sat facing a clock. I would summarize the high points of my day first, taking about five minutes, he would then take the floor for about 45 minutes.

I've had lots of time to think about why. He debriefs and processes his day this way. He works through frustrations and sometimes even solves problems. He's very quiet the rest of the day and we have close friends and relatives who assume that he's always quiet, but the long talking happens regularly, four or five times a week. It flows over me and unless his voice becomes particularly agitated (rarely) I find it sort of relaxing. Thank heavens he never quizzes me afterward because I usually just pay attention for the first part and drift away for the repetitions.

I did actually miss the first twenty minutes or so of my marriage proposal before I realized I'd better listen up. I'll always wonder what he said.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

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.

"Substantial points"? Fine. Your first criticism was to dismiss the Science article because apparently you think the speech habits of undergraduates might be so drastically different from the rest of the population that no one could possibly know whether the results might have any wider applicability. And how could we ever learn whether undergrads are actually different or not? According to you, that would take careful study - expensive, slow, and painful study! Which is pretty weird, when you think about it, because a) you're obviously more than satisfied with your own casual observations in other cases - no special study required there! - and yet b) you're apparently unwilling to apply your own experience to evaluate the validity of the study on the very aspect you question. You really don't have any opinion on whether undergradates are similar to other humans in their speech patterns? What happened - did you discover your superpowers of unbiased observation only after you spent all that time on campus?

In your second criticism ... well, after that first one, I'm not really convinced these objections are meant seriously. Your criticism of the article's methodology would carry more weight if you could articulate any methodology of your own more elaborate than "stuff I remember in my own experience".

And as for this:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

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.

That's a really naive answer. (Note: I'm studiously avoiding the less charitable suggestion that it might be a disingenuous one.) It is not silly to take measures to guard against contamination of observations by confirmation bias or prejudice.

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

Is there anybody here who, like me, envies the facility - especially of the young - to engage in "small talk"? Someone near the top of the page mentioned that silence can be unnerving, threatening even. Some people are afraid that a shared silence may be misconstrued by the internonlocutor as something more intimate than it is. The ability to chat (well) indicates that the chatter is at his/her ease, and helps to put at ease the other person. However, a tendency to sit silently and not engage in conversation does not always signify UNease or malicious intent - sometimes it just means the poor old bugger's deaf!

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

In my case (at work at least) it means I have nothing worth saying. But it unnerves the chatterers in the cube next to me. They seem to imagine I'm plotting EEEeeevillll.

Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :

**attempt to get back to Ingo's original intent of opening this debate***

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

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? [/QB]

What "must" be spoken? Very little. But there is a need for better concepts and more concise ways of expressing oneself.

IMHO the more complex the world becomes the less capable we are of seizing it in words. If Boulding's sysyems hierarchy is anything to go by, we've reached a stage where our surroundings, the socio-technical environment in which we have to operate, by far exceeds the degree of complexity at which our brains are capable of operating.

One reaction to this fairly recent phenomenon is the proliferation of chatter (I just need to look at the incredible amount of stupid books, from self-help crap to really idiotic textbooks for "university" "students")that try to give structure and meaning to the world. The German sociologist Niklas Luhmann once said that all this chatter is just a simple strategy of "uncertainty avoidance".
We should, however, need to live with uncertainty again, embrace a process epistemology and try to stop making so much noise.

A good exercise in conciseness is composing haikus.
Becoming a Taoist is another option [Big Grin]

[ 22. September 2012, 08:27: Message edited by: Desert Daughter ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I've done a lot of meditation retreats where silence was obligatory. At first, some people get sort of giggly at the silence, or look embarrassed, but after a while, people just sink into it, and it can seem blissful.

But then I'm an introvert, which seems to make a big difference. Extroverts seem to like chattering a lot, introverts less so. As you get older, you learn to leave each other alone.

Posted by chive (# 208) on :

At work I'm really, really talkative and I probably annoy the hell out of a lot of people. That's partly due to the nature of my work but fundamentally due to the fact I'm very shy and lacking in confidence and when I go to work I have to act confident and I probably usually overact it to attempt to cover up my shyness.

There's also the fact I live on my own and if I'm not at work I can literally go a week without talking to anyone at all.

Also I find random things utterly fascinating and I presume other people will too so I tell them. For example at about half five this morning at work I read something about Otto of Bavaria - apparently he liked to start each morning by shooting a peasant. His staff used to put a blank in his gun and then another member of staff would dress as a peasant and then pretend to collapse and die. When you learn information like this it's surely incumbent on you to pass it on for the benefit of all.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

You really, really won't believe this, but I don't talk much in real life. (Much easier to type.)

They say that you can always tell old married couples in a restaurant, as they don't need to speak a lot to each other.

[ 22. September 2012, 09:34: Message edited by: Chorister ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
... But for other people, talking is all about social and emotional connection. That stream of chatter about irrelevant whatsits is really saying, "I'm here, and you're here, and I'm glad of that." Sometimes it's saying, "I wish you would pay more attention to me." Sometimes it's "I want to be closer to you emotionally." Sometimes it's just plain "I want you to like and maybe admire me."

As long as it's not "I'm the centre of my universe, its drama king or queen. You are only relevant so far as you listen to me, agree with me and affirm me".

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

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:

First, that was explicitly a non-general statement: "in my case at least". It merely assumed that others would have similar experiences: "no prizes for guessing though". And that is actually a fair thing to do, if one had unequivocal experiences oneself. As I did. Second, as mentioned, it was an afterthought, and in my mind referred to the situation just discussed: "assigning a gender to the Chinese "motor mouth" above", rather than to some general question of how much the genders talk. It was admittedly unfortunate that I had made my "philosophical" and hence general statement in between.

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
When you make a blatantly sexist statement, yes, that's exactly what happens.

Actually, you made that statement suspect of "sexism" in everybody's mind, by declaring it to be so. Whereupon we all must discuss at tedious length whether it is or it isn't, for great justice. I count eight posters after the OP who responded along the lines I intended. I doubt that you would to call all of them "insensitive to sexism". Then came Dave W., who provided some facts counter something I didn't say, to claim something that they don't support. But even this didn't stop reasonable conversation, for another ten posts following him. Then you came along. I agree though that I gave you a clear and present opportunity. Mea culpa, I guess.

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
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.

Oh, I'm quite sure that you are capable of ruining this particular conversation, if you haven't done so already. But here's the deal. I will just continue to post interesting and/or informative stuff. And I'm sure people will eventually find it in their hearts to forgive me, since they are basically here to be infotained, rather than to right the world. So, knock yourself out...

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Well, then, maybe it wasn't helpful to precede what is actually a very interesting question with a racist, sexist anecdote.

I asked myself this interesting question because of the actual events in that anecdote, which I had observed about half an hour before posting. So I thought it would be nice to include that. As for its supposed "sexism", see above. As for its supposed "racism", I said in the OP "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."

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Your first criticism was to dismiss the Science article because apparently you think the speech habits of undergraduates might be so drastically different from the rest of the population that no one could possibly know whether the results might have any wider applicability.

And that is hardly an unreasonable assumption, given that they represent a very restricted sample of the population. Furthermore, while I haven't looked at the paper (by the way, how about a proper reference?), I would bet that the number of say physics or engineering students in their sample was quite small. Usually how it works is that students in psychology, sociology etc. get academic credits for participating in experiments (or at least get a lot more exposed to the ads seeking volunteers). Consequently, what we now know is likely something like "young psychology students of both genders talked about equally much, though male ones perhaps talked somewhat less on average".

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Which is pretty weird, when you think about it, because a) you're obviously more than satisfied with your own casual observations in other cases - no special study required there! - and yet b) you're apparently unwilling to apply your own experience to evaluate the validity of the study on the very aspect you question.

a) The OP was not a manuscript submitted to Science, and the question it asked was philosophical and a bit whimsical, not scientific. b) If my experience did not suggest that young (psychology) undergraduates may not be particularly representative, I would not have thought of this criticism. That I do not make absolute statements about scientific results based on just experience is simply professional prudence.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
In your second criticism ... well, after that first one, I'm not really convinced these objections are meant seriously. Your criticism of the article's methodology would carry more weight if you could articulate any methodology of your own more elaborate than "stuff I remember in my own experience".

In other words, my critique that their sampling method privileges "steady talk" over "peak talk" is so obviously true, that you are reduced to personal attacks. You are also quite mistaken if you think that one must present an alternative in order to critique a method. This is science, not politics. Furthermore, it is particularly ironic that the very anecdote of the OP is a prime example of the kind of speech act that their method is ill suited to capture. And that information was available even in your secondary source...

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

Back to more interesting things then.

In my case, I find that "alcohol loosens the tongue"... I'm not exactly silent in everyday life anyhow, but if I drink I start to get really chatty. Now, is this because social inhibitions get removed, or because my previously good judgement gets impaired that this or that really is of no particular relevance or interest?

However, I also deal quite well with silence. I've been to two Zen retreats, where one did not speak (or only to the minimal extent required, like in the kitchen), for seven days. I found other aspects challenging, but not really having to be silent.

I also remember that movie "Into Great Silence", where the Carthusian monks - who are strictly silent most of the time - get these off-days (weekends? less regular? can't remember) where they are allowed to talk. And then chat quite happily and normally.

Hence I'm not so sure that "chatty" and "quiet" are simple contrary characteristics of people.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I think we can get past the gender stereotyping, but here I'm at risk of another form of stereotyping.

So let's say that some folks prefer extraversion, some introversion. In short, I'm classifying extraversion and introversion as behavioural preferences, rather than personality characteristics.

Being someone who prefers extraversion, I often talk (and write) to find out what I'm thinking. It's like a journey. Folks with the other preference may think I'm just rabbiting on, and regard it as an imposition. "You should work out what it is you want to say before you start".

My wife prefers introversion. In the early years of our marriage these different preferences used to get on each other's nerves. It seemed to me that whenever she said she had something to talk about, we didn't have a discussion, she presented me with her well thought out conclusions! A point I used to make, to which her normal riposte was "well at least I don't waste our time with red herrings and inconsequentials!"

What she tended to see as my lack of discipline and consideration, I tended to see as her lack of openness. But we found ways of talking about that. And discovered that both our tendencies had been reinforced by aspects of our upbringing which we didn't like very much. In her case it was her father's precision (which made her careful to think first). In mine it was my mother's volubility, which meant that if you didn't jump into a split second pause you never got to say anything!

Once we realised the roots of our differences, we both relaxed a lot more. We recognise that in discussing any issue we face together, my tendency to discursiveness and hers to precision can be harnessed together to make sure that the best insights we both have can be uttered and heard by the other before we make choices together.

So we talk a lot, and listen a lot, to one another, because it's been of very great value to us. And each of us has developed better habits of listening and speaking as a result.

There's a lot to talk about if you're living in partnership with someone you love. The process of "dwelling in unity" requires learning, work, change.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Hence I'm not so sure that "chatty" and "quiet" are simple contrary characteristics of people.

No, I don't think so either. The Quiet Day or mandated silence example is a good example.

I think some folk have a flow of consciousness style of chatting for many different reasons such as nervousness, or loneliness, or just a lack of skill in conversing. Some conversations just need to be interrupted, when someone's running off on a handful of tangents one after the other! And some people do 'debrief', as a previous poster said above, in that way too.

I think, too, it can be a kind of habit - like people who fill the gaps of their conversation with nervous laughter, or random 'uhms', or physical 'tics'.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

"I talk, therefore I am"? In American society, at any rate, the motor mouth syndrome seems primarily to be an affliction of women. This doesn't mean that most women are motor mouths, but that most motor mouths are female. However, male motor mouths tend to be the most annoying and - ISTM - most self-aggrandising of all, with a more obvious need to attract all attention to themselves. I am struck by wonder at these creatures who have the facility of pouring forth a stream of talk-talk-talk. I'm rarely loquacious and my partner and I usually know what the other is going to say before the communication is articulated more than a word or two; indeed, we are usually thinking the same thing simultaneously. So who needs incessant talk?
A little goes a long way as a tool for bonding or self-expression.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

We once had a big shot from South Africa come to our theological training college to tell us about the development of his theological training college.

He mentioned that there was a no talking rule after Evening Prayer until Morning Prayer.

My boss turned to me and said:

"Evensong could never handle that".

[Big Grin]

Life without talking is boooooooooooooring.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
ETA: saysay, you could also do with some evidence for what you claim. Whole classes of people all talk the same amount?

I don't think that's what I said:

quote:
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.

I was referring to sociolinguistics.

Most relevant bit:

quote:
According to Paivio, there are two types of codes; verbal and non-verbal. The dual coding theory proposed by Paivio attempts to give equal weight to verbal and non-verbal processing. Paivio (1986) states: "Human cognition is unique in that it has become specialized for dealing simultaneously with language and with nonverbal objects and events. Moreover, the language system is peculiar in that it deals directly with linguistic input and output (in the form of speech or writing) while at the same time serving a symbolic function with respect to nonverbal objects, events, and behaviors. Any representational theory must accommodate this dual functionality." (p. 53). The use of context by members of working class to imply what they mean, therefore, may be a "non-verbal code". However, this type of communicative skills may not be understood by other children who belong to other classes. What's more, children with restricted-code may have difficulty in understanding the teacher, the only source of information for them at school. Therefore, it is suggested that working-class children should have pre-school training within their early childhood period. Early schooling may provide them with opportunities to acquire the way of speaking valid at school.

There's a lot of research in this. My main point being that the communications subculture is simply different, and that the working class in the US are likely to factor in more non-verbal clues rather than relying primarily on words spoken. And that, while it is anecdotal IME evidence, many in the middle class do in fact seem to believe that auditory learning and processing (which would place an emphasis on listening and talking as forms of communication) is superior. This has all kinds of consequences in terms of our education system, but that's another topic.

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

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.

I didn't take that to be about the natural physiological differences in pitch, but the social ones. Anne Karpf argues in The Human Voice:

quote:
What further complicates our understanding of the differences between men and women's voices is that our voices change depending on who we're talking to. Women, for instance, adopt a kind of baby-talk - high-pitched with wide-ranging intonation - to express affection to their boyfriends. Both men and women talk louder when speaking to someone of the opposite sex, women making 'masculine-like vocal adjustments' to avoid feeling at a power disadvantage. The average pitch of women is usually lower in formal situations than in informal; when they turn to serious topics women suppress the high pitches they use in casual conversational style, perhaps because it's so disparaged.(164-165)

She mentions elsewhere that while there are studies showing that men frequently dominate the conversation (and talk more) in the public sphere, there is some evidence that women dominate the conversation in the private sphere.

(And today I learned that I'm friends with way too many linguists).

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
... 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...

Ah, so you're a James Earl Jones follower, then?

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
... 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...

Well, then, here you go:

James Earl Jones

Deep enough?

ETA: not sure what happened there ...

[ 22. September 2012, 19:25: Message edited by: Soror Magna ]

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
In my case, I find that "alcohol loosens the tongue"... I'm not exactly silent in everyday life anyhow, but if I drink I start to get really chatty. Now, is this because social inhibitions get removed, or because my previously good judgement gets impaired that this or that really is of no particular relevance or interest?

I do that too. I think it's partially that I stop paying so much attention to others and whether or not they might want to speak and start assuming they'll interrupt, and partially that I stop worrying that I'll sound stupid. On the other hand, I can do that without alcohol, as I seem to have some switch I can flip that controls what my friends have described as 'the power of babble' (which tends to cause non-talkers to relax and start talking in situations in which talking is the goal).

As for how much we "need" to talk about the world not just in a practical sense but a psychological one, I'd say it depends on the person. Personally I'd say not at all as long as "talk" is not synonymous with "communicate" but I know people who rely much more heavily on verbal interaction and verbal processing to sort out/clarify their own thoughts who probably do need to talk. I don't tend to mind as long as they don't get angry when I start to simply veg out on the sound of their voice.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

Good grief, IngoB, why is it so hard to admit that you made a mistake and apologize for it? Your attempt to bury your misstep in verbiage is kind of amusing given your attempts to discuss the motor-mouth phenomenon.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Desert Daughter:

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...

Do you enjoy sounding like one of the boys who trash women?

There have been few posts in Purg that I have found as smugly bitchy as your little offering.

[ 22. September 2012, 21:40: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

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. etc
I didn't take that to be about the natural physiological differences in pitch, but the social ones.

I don't want you to feel that your learnedness is being wasted on me (your quote seems very sensible and certainly in accord with my own experience [Smile]

) but I don't think Desert Daughter was referring to either 'natural physiological differences' either or what you have referenced.

I think s/he was referring unkindly and, imo, inaccurately, to the 'shrieking' of a woman's chattering as opposed to the presumably more acceptable and lower-voiced chattering of a man's. To say nothing of his/her implied assertion that the higher-pitched such chattering is the less intelligent it is.

Undoubtedly it is harder to take seriously a shrieking hysteric - of either sex - whatever the quality of the content of their shriek. However, it is interesting to notice what our reactions are to men who are in full flow conversation and being noisy, and women are being the same. Which group would we find more annoying in a pub or restaurant?

Posted by Bean Sidhe (# 11823) on :

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.

That accords with my experience, that any language I don't speak at all (ie any but English or French) sounds to me like a fast gabble because, as lilB says, I have no keys to its structure.

Tangentially, does anyone else find that, returning from a longish spell in a non-English environment, just for a while they hear the babble of English as others do? Sounds a bit like Dutch to me.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Most of what is said, in any language, IS babble. Chat is just the verbal equivalent of grooming.

Posted by Bean Sidhe (# 11823) on :

No, chat isn't just grooming. There's a lot of contextual subtext which amounts to far more than looking for nits!

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Then came Dave W., who provided some facts counter something I didn't say, to claim something that they don't support.

Oh please. You specifically invited comments on more than just your narrowly defined "motor mouth" concept:

quote:
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.)

I think the note in Science I mentioned ("Are Women Really More Talkative than Men?") is more than adequately related to the topic, particularly in view of the relaxed, whimsical standards you're allowing yourself here.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Your first criticism was to dismiss the Science article because apparently you think the speech habits of undergraduates might be so drastically different from the rest of the population that no one could possibly know whether the results might have any wider applicability.
And that is hardly an unreasonable assumption, given that they represent a very restricted sample of the population. [...] Consequently, what we now know is likely something like "young psychology students of both genders talked about equally much, though male ones perhaps talked somewhat less on average".

Well, slightly less on average (though the difference wasn't statistically significant) and with a larger standard deviation. But might they be such freaks that we couldn't possibly think this has any bearing on the population at large? No, the study has acknowledged limitations, but that is an unreasonable assumption.

By the way - at the risk of seeming to "borrow authority to score cheap points" (which is an interesting "irregular verb" way to refer to citing published work!) - the reference is

quote:
Are Women Really More Talkative Than Men? Matthias R. Mehl, Simine Vazire, Nairán Ramírez-Esparza, Richard B. Slatcher, and James W. Pennebaker Science 6 July 2007: 82. [DOI:10.1126/science.1139940] Reprint freely available here.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Which is pretty weird, when you think about it, because a) you're obviously more than satisfied with your own casual observations in other cases - no special study required there! - and yet b) you're apparently unwilling to apply your own experience to evaluate the validity of the study on the very aspect you question.
a) The OP was not a manuscript submitted to Science, and the question it asked was philosophical and a bit whimsical, not scientific.

None of this thread is a submission to Science, but if you want to criticize the methodology of anyone's contributions, it's only fair for you to expect some criticism of your own (or lack thereof.)

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
In your second criticism ... well, after that first one, I'm not really convinced these objections are meant seriously. Your criticism of the article's methodology would carry more weight if you could articulate any methodology of your own more elaborate than "stuff I remember in my own experience".
In other words, my critique that their sampling method privileges "steady talk" over "peak talk" is so obviously true, that you are reduced to personal attacks.

Your own OP suggested gender bias immediately after you solicited comment on behavior broader than the specific issue on which you now say you want to focus, so your critique isn't nearly as devastating as you seem to think. And ridicule of flabby reasoning hardly qualifies as a personal attack.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The brain does not know the rhythm 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.

First, thank you for the publication, is was very interesting.
Second, it does not in anyway contradict my statement.* Especially as it mentions information density as very similar across languages. When one understands a language, one hears information. When one does not understand, one hears sounds. As to your differentiating between the speed of speech in the observed couple, there will be variations between individuals.
I would like to see a study on gesticulations. In my observations I have noted strong intra, as well as inter, cultural variation. Though I would not presume to call my observations a "study."
FWIW, I did not mean my statement to be an absolute, there are few absolutes.

*Granted, with some variation and the study sample was self-admittedly small.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Now, is this because social inhibitions get removed, or because my previously good judgement gets impaired that this or that really is of no particular relevance or interest?

Alcohol lowers inhibitions, decreases self-control and degrades the quality of judgment whether or not it was good in the first.

The ability to handle periods of quiet and periods of talk is not unique. I find most people to be in this category rather than at the extremes.
Retreats are not a good example, IMO, as they are controlled and limited and only filter out the extreme. As for the monks, more difficult to say. though I would posit it is merely a longer version of a retreat and the monks still fall into the "normal" range as far as speech v. silence.

Communication as part of the gregarious nature of our species is the key to the question in the OP. We feel the need to know and/or establish our relationships and speech is a part. Unpacking loquacity vs reticence can relate largely to how comfortable one is with one's position vis-a-vie one's current situation.

Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Alcohol lowers inhibitions, decreases self-control and degrades the quality of judgment whether or not it was good in the first.

..oh well I wouldn't be quite so harsh on Alcohol... but more to the point, it can also make people shut up. I am an extreme introvert, and while I love writing, I hate talking. At the few social occasions I am compelled to attend, I force myself (out of pure politeness) to engage in communication. The more I imbibe, the less the social inhibition of not displaying my sociophobia keeps me on the straight and narrow path of appearing affable, interested, and communicative. I shut up. I withdraw. I look at my hosts' bookshelf and see whether I find something worth reading. Or I loose all inhibitions and just leave.

[ 23. September 2012, 09:20: Message edited by: Desert Daughter ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
According to Paivio, there are two types of codes; verbal and non-verbal. The dual coding theory proposed by Paivio attempts to give equal weight to verbal and non-verbal processing. Paivio (1986) states: "Human cognition is unique in that it has become specialized for dealing simultaneously with language and with nonverbal objects and events. Moreover, the language system is peculiar in that it deals directly with linguistic input and output (in the form of speech or writing) while at the same time serving a symbolic function with respect to nonverbal objects, events, and behaviors. Any representational theory must accommodate this dual functionality." (p. 53). The use of context by members of working class to imply what they mean, therefore, may be a "non-verbal code". However, this type of communicative skills may not be understood by other children who belong to other classes. What's more, children with restricted-code may have difficulty in understanding the teacher, the only source of information for them at school. Therefore, it is suggested that working-class children should have pre-school training within their early childhood period. Early schooling may provide them with opportunities to acquire the way of speaking valid at school.

I can't understand a word of that. Does that make me upper class, middle class, lower class or just stupid?

Assuming 'verbal' = speech and 'non-verbal' = gestures, grimaces etc, the only people I've ever met who didn't use both habitually have been seriously disabled in some way.

Indeed that passage could be regarded as a sort of parable for how communication fails if you don't use both. If 'abstract speculation' corresponds to 'verbal' and 'example' to 'non-verbal' a statement like

quote:
"The use of context by members of working class (sic) to imply what they mean, therefore, may be a "non-verbal code"."

conveys nothing unless supported by examples.

LilBuddha I agree with you that gestures vary by culture just as language does. English people have an entirely false belief that gesticulation is a foreign habit. It isn't. It's just that the gestures are different. I once had the uncanny experience of meeting someone who was a first language English speaker but had largely grown up in France. I realised that he spoke English with French gestures.

I've not read this anywhere, but I believe it to be a rule in English that the person speaking uses gestures and the person/people listening do not. Watch conversations at a distance, and you will see it is a marker as the metaphorical baton is passed around the group. We are never taught that. We just know it.

I'd love to know whether this is a human universal or is culturally specific.

If two people are gesturing at the same time, it's a fairly accurate pointer that the conversation is going badly wrong.

If you watch people conversing in a pub, as the ambient noise level rises, and it becomes harder for people to hear each other, the gestures become more flamboyant. Watch sometime and you will see.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bean Sidhe:
No, chat isn't just grooming. There's a lot of contextual subtext which amounts to far more than looking for nits!

Yes. It often involves listening to nits. [Devil]

[ 23. September 2012, 16:51: Message edited by: leo ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0