Comment by seti0Cha | Hacker News Reader

Comment by seti0Cha | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It seems to me that nicespeak is nothing more than our culture's embodiment of courtesy, or etiquette. Our society self-consciously strives to be egalitarian, so formality and honorifics sit poorly with us. However, unscripted social interactions are fraught with danger. They can easily become awkward or lead to misunderstandings. Etiquette provides a framework a person can operate within wherein you don't have to worry about what the other person will think or feel. This is particularly valuable in a business context, so our institutions strive to fabricate this framework.

There's nothing wrong with this, as long as everyone recognizes it for what it is. We harmlessly exchange stock phrases, like "how are you", to which the proper responses include "fine, and you?", or "not too bad, yourself?" or the like. The person who says "oh, terrible" and proceeds to tell you about it has violated the social contract and imposed a burden on the other party. The person behind the counter at the fast food restaurant doesn't want to have to think to say "I hope you enjoy that milk", or find some other way to close the conversation, so they're just as happy to say that stock phrase "enjoy your meal" and be done with you.

I think the author's chosen name for the phenomenon "Nicespeak" creates a cognitive distortion that muddies what I think her point is. She is not talking about being nice rather than being rude. Rather she is talking about being authentic and human rather than becoming an automaton channeling the will of the powers that are compelling your speech.

Her example of the fast food worker is they're channeling the brand of the franchise "whether or not they made sense in a given context". "The idea was to subordinate the personality of the individual speaker to a centrally designed corporate voice."

Her example of the workers in the public-private partnership of academia describes having to conform to the rules of the corporate information-hiding language game in order to compete with others for funding. "If they do not claim to be 'excellent', they will inevitably come out losers."

In these cases the casualties are authenticity, connection, a frank assessment of and confrontation with reality, and humanity. In lieu of them, we've created a network of symbols and signs overtop of existence that pretends to be true reality, but really distorts it to the benefit of the holders of power. This network of symbols comprises brands, mission statements, corporate personalities, metrics that yield to Goodhart's law, empty buzzwords and hype, etc, etc, etc.

I think that's what she's criticizing.

I think the reason that we do what you and the post you're replying to describe is because it massively lowers "transaction costs" of social interactions. It's a simplifying abstraction, and obviously all abstractions will hide information or result in things being lost

what is the benefit here? it's too costly to talk to a human, so instead, you would rather speak to a corporate automaton?

So, there is this cup of coffee that is given to you by a waiter who gave out 30 cups of coffee since morning and will give out 40 more. The waiter has to say something while giving it out. Effectively, you are demanding that waiter personalizes the message to each customer instead of just saying stock "enjoy your meal". That is genuinely demanding too much.

No. It's too costly to speak to 200 humans, so instead, you would rather turn in to a corporate automaton. The stock phrases are so I, the employee who has to interact with customers, can turn off.

> In these cases the casualties are authenticity, connection, a frank assessment of and confrontation with reality, and humanity. In lieu of them, we've created a network of symbols and signs overtop of existence that pretends to be true reality, but really distorts it to the benefit of the holders of power

My point is, we have always done this, but with different vocabulary and different institutions. When has human relations at any scale been properly characterized as frank or authentic? I suppose you could say that the Mongols butchering their way across Europe and Asia were being frank and authentic in their relations with others, but I doubt they were so in their internal relations.

I don’t think that’s the main point of the article (though it is addressed).

The problem with Nicespeak is it becomes a mandatory form of expression. See, for example, mission statements at universities (TFA). Without these obligatory technocrat documents, universities will be stripped of funding and accreditation.

To provide a slightly more contemporary take, see the censorship/moderation debate in public discourse today. I think a direct line can be drawn between societal Nicespeak and our almost compulsive need to scrub social media et al. of anything sufficiently nonconformist.

> see the censorship/moderation debate in public discourse today. I think a direct line can be drawn between societal Nicespeak and our almost compulsive need to scrub social media et al. of anything sufficiently nonconformist.

I'm sympathetic to this line of reasoning, but I think these are somewhat different phenomena. I am arguing that nicespeak is not actually something new, but rather the contemporary form of something that people have always engaged in. I would say a more direct line exists between current discourse policing and prior periods' "corruption of public morals" concerns, such as they Hollywood code imposed to restrict what sorts of behavior could be depicted on screen, the prohibition on swearing or nudity on television, or the banning of "immoral" books in libraries.

I don't think the author's problem with things like mission statements is primarily that they are mandatory. I think her primary problem with them is that they misrepresent what the organization actually does and how well (or poorly) it actually does it. It is true, though, that a key reason why they have to misrepresent is, so to speak, grade inflation: any organization that doesn't portray itself (however unjustifiably) as perfect at its nominal mission in all public statements loses funding to those that do.

<< But it seemed strange that instructions had been issued at all, and stranger still that they were generally obeyed.

It is, but when it is mandated it ceases to be courtesy ( it may still remain etiquette as that is mandated and enforced by society depending on definition used ); it becomes a forced behavior.

That said, I still prefer the example you gave. I used to cringe internally over forced small talk in US ( "how are you", "fine/great/would complain, but -- no one listens" response ), but I kinda argue it is better than the weird 'everyone is out to get me; don't talk to me' approach from the old country.

As always, but.. just because I prefer it now, does it mean I can reasonably "expect" it?

> when it is mandated it ceases to be courtesy

I don't think there's anything contradictory about mandated courtesy, unless you mean it in the sense of "consideration". I think the primary meaning is closer to etiquette than consideration though. The etymology of the term is derived from courtliness, i.e. behavior in a King's court.

> We harmlessly exchange stock phrases, like "how are you", to which the proper responses include "fine, and you?",...

Q. How do you confuse an anglophone?

A. Answer, when they ask how you are.

I'm not convinced that this works with smaller communities, they seem to want to help solve your down.

I think the point is that we can distinguish ordinary civility from nicespeak. The latter is insincere, existing primarily as a means to reinforce a (usually corporate) power structure.

I disagree. First, insincere polite speech greatly predates the existence of corporations, and second, it exists between parties who are on equal terms as often as between superior and subordinate. Consider the niceties of diplomats, for example. As I pointed out in my previous post, it actually serves a purpose for both parties.

I don't disagree with you, but none of this contradicts the thesis. I am happy to accept that "nicespeak" predates the early 00's and that diplomats routinely engage in it.

I am also happy to accept that it has evolved into a new form, via corporate influence.

Fair enough. I was mostly reacting to the 2nd sentence. I guess I'm not sure what your primary thesis was. I agree that you can distinguish between civility and nicespeak, but mostly because I see nicespeak as a form of civility. I don't see civility as requiring sincerity. When we ask someone to keep things civil, we aren't asking them to be more sincere. However, I can understand having different connotations for the word and I wouldn't really want to quibble about it.

I think the issue has less to do with sincerity (in the sense you’re referring to) and more to do with the reasons for it. The troubling aspect of “nicespeak”, as we’ve defined it, is that it serves to reinforce a corporate power structure. _That_ is why I mind it while appreciating garden-variety civility.

Interesting perspective! I'm not sure I agree with it, but I'm glad I read it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com