The Awesome Power of Indirect Speech
Never in the history of humankind has an invitation to coffee stimulated so much blogging.
Continuing the HBES 2011 retrospective, one talk at the conference, by Kyle Thomas, was about indirect speech, a topic which intersects with a recent explosion in the blogosphere featuring some characters of interest to the community, including Richard Dawkins (the well-known erudite, eloquent hero to so many of us) and PZ Myers (blogger).
First, indirect speech. Pinker et al wrote a nice little piece on this phenomenon in PNAS a few years ago, also covered in The Stuff of Thought. Roughly, it’s use of language in such a way that one can convey one’s intent without packing the true meaning into the words chosen. The example Thomas uses in the title of his HBES talk is, “Do you want to see my etchings?” The surface meaning is a question about your interest in seeing my artwork. With appropriate context, the real intended meaning is a question about your interest in having sex with me.
Why not forget about the etchings and just ask about sex? After all, when a bowerbird invites a potential mate into the bower, there’s no pretense about his wondering if she might want to come in and enjoy the baubles he’s gathered. Why aren’t humans more direct? Thomas, following the arguments made elsewhere, suggests that there are cost to being direct, costs which can be reduced or eliminated with indirect speech. If the offer is declined when it is made directly, there could be reputational costs of being turned down; in contrast, if someone simply declines seeing some etchings, well, that might reflect poorly on one’s taste in art more than one’s position on the mating market. The reputational costs of being turned down when one has explicitly asked might in part explain why flirting in humans more generally has such an indirect quality.
Direct communication in any number of domains can carry costs. This is visible in other contexts, such as threats or bribes. When Steve Buscemi’s character in Fargo suggests to the officer that “we could take care of it right here, in Brainerd,” this is an attempt to offer a bribe using indirect speech. If he’s an honest cop, the hope is that the judge won’t take the speech act to be sufficient to be clearly offering the bribe.
And now to connect to current events. PZ Myers recently wrote about an incident in which a man in an elevator made the following remark to the woman he was riding with:
Don’t take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more. Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?
Apparently, despite his opening request that she not do so, she did, indeed, take it the wrong way; apparently she did not seem to think that he was particularly interested either in talking more or in coffee. It appears as though she interpreted this as a solicitation to sex. And then comes Richard Dawkins commenting on PZ Myers’ blog, suggesting that the woman in question “stop whining” and “grow a thicker skin” – thus starting a cascade of blog posts, comments, and to my eye something of a struggle to assume the most pious, enlightened, and sympathetic air possible. (For the record, I am opposed to everything bad and hurtful and in favor of all things helpful and good. I validate everyone’s feelings, support freedom and dignity, and deplore mean people. I’m also pro-cake.) (For what strikes me a refreshingly adult take on this issue, see Amy Alkon’s post.)
Given that indirect speech is supposed to be useful for avoiding costs, there’s something interesting in the more or less spectacular failure in this case. (Having said that, actually, Elevator Guy, as far as I know, has not been named, so in some sense, maybe it did work. He was able to make his offer, and, again, at least as far as I know, hasn’t suffered any reputational damage. All the costs have been borne by others.) To wit, Dawkins does seem to be paying some costs, judging from the tone of the blogosphere. Also, I’m very concerned about Dawkins’ relationship with PZ: Myers has indicated that he disagrees with Dawkins on this issue.
Maybe Elevator Guy just wasn’t indirect enough. One feature of indirect speech is that there is a potential tradeoff. By avoiding one’s true meaning, misunderstandings are possible. From Seinfeld…
George: She invites me up at twelve o clock at night, for coffee. And I don’t go up. “No thank you, I don’t want coffee, it keeps me up. Too late for me to drink coffee.” I said this to her. People this stupid shouldn’t be allowed to live. I can’t imagine what she must think of me.
Jerry: She thinks you’re a guy that doesn’t like coffee.
George: She invited me up. Coffee’s not coffee, coffee is sex.
Elaine: Maybe coffee was coffee.
George: Coffee’s coffee in the morning, it’s not coffee at twelve o clock at night.
Elaine: Well some people drink coffee that late.
George: Yeah, people who work at NORAD, who’re on twenty-four hour missile watch
So, you know, indirect speech is all about tradeoffs. Burying your message risks having your intended meaning misunderstood. Making it too obvious risks enduring the costs that indirect speech is supposed to avoid. An invitation to coffee, apparently, can miss in both directions…
Pingback: Assorted Links 4 | The London School of Attraction