Our Use of Little Words Can, Uh, Reveal Hidden Interests
npr.org
npr.org
Isn't it simply because you need to introduce yourself and provide a bit of context when you write an unsolicited email? That seems to be a reasonable explanation for the two examples from the post...
I have been contacting a large group of people and many
have specifically asked if you were attending.
Many people on the contact list have specifically asked if
you are attending.
The idea of a reunion is a nice one
I think the idea of a reunion is a nice one The reason I'm writing is that I'm helping to put together a conference on [a particular topic].
As kids we were taught by our parents to avoid I, me and my in letters we wrote to our grandparents. It was (is?) seen as rude. The justification wasn't about status at all, but rather about ego. The worst offense was beginning a letter with I. At least it was in German in the '70's. Anyway, the habit stuck but lately I find myself slipping.
I actually put it to good use writing some email newsletters for a local conference where I tried to eliminate usage of I/we/etc because I felt that it was more professional.
"The idea of..." line suggests that whatever is being said is a known fact, that the reader should take it on authority, where as adding "I think" immediately makes it sound like the writer is less sure of themself and only has an opinion that they don't want to push on anyone.
I would agree with this, but this all very implicit in the post.
Dear Dr. Pennebaker:
Was part of your Introductory Psychology class last semester.
Enjoyed your lectures and learned so much. Received an
email from you about doing some research with you.
Would there be a time to come by and talk about this?
PamI see that commonly in three scenarios: 1) irc 2) from people who learn to write English as a second language 3) from people with whom I have a familiar relationship - generally rendering the pronoun unnecessary.
An example of an email I got just today:
Hi <mr-ron>,
Saw your company's ad on a taxi yesterday, checked out your product,
and was wondering who you are using for colocation.
Regards,
<person i will not be responding to>This seems even further in that direction - instead of distancing the author, it removes him entirely from the discussion.
I do agree the "self-conscious" explanation seemed like an interpretation without evidence, and struck me as incomplete. I'd guess it has more to do with intentional signalling, and that it's often conscious, even if that consiousness is not of "I"-frequency per se. That is, when writing or speaking as a supplicant, you're aware of using language that sounds "respectful" or "polite," and "I"-frequency is a feature of such language which we internalize.
Which is to say that we often write in this style because we intellectually know it's appropriate, even when we are not affectively feeling any emotion like self-consciousness or nervousness.
When you are introducing yourself, you have to refer to yourself explicitly. You are trying to convey information about who you are and what your background is. That's not a sign of low status, it's a necessity to transport essential context. If you try to leave that information out, or if you just omit the pronoun, your introduction will inevitably sound broken or unfriendly.
I'm guessing the reason why this is being conflated with low status by the professor is simple: if you're high-status, other people initiate contact a lot more often than you do. And when they initiate contact, they need an introduction, whereas you are already known to them.
At a fundamental level, this hypothesis as it's being described muddles correlations and causes.
Secondly, I'd like to point out that clearly marking certain points as opinion does not come from a perspective of inferiority or uncertainty. Especially in a setting where discussion is warranted, such as here on HN, it's an appropriate signal.
When I refer to myself and my perspective, I'm not asking you to disregard my point of view, I'm inviting you to see things from where I'm standing, and I'm also inviting you to present other perspectives without either of us being pressured to lead with assertions like "WRONG! Here's how it really is: [text]". Instead, you are afforded the option to respond with "My experience has been different. Here's why: [text]".
What may be better is to look at emails from people who already know each other, but have some power imbalance.
Speaking of correlation and causation, inferiority can definitely result in points marked as opinions or as uncertain. Depending on the setting, of course. In my experience, anyway.
[1] http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/HomePage/Faculty/Pennebaker/H...
[2] http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/HomePage/Faculty/Pennebaker/R...
Here's a hypothesis. The higher status person has learned to express their thoughts in a way that makes them seem more objective and authoritarian -- and less susceptible to negotiation or debate. The implicit assumption is that your words convey opinions, but their words convey facts.
If the language shift was a learned skill that developed as part of performing the roles of the higher status, wouldn't two people of high status converse using similar rates, even if one of them is relatively higher than the other?
I'd suggest social status is always relative and is likely assumed by participants prior to their initiating an interaction: The student used lower status language when writing to the professor, who used lower status language when writing to the famous professor.
That isn't shown in the evidence, because the evidence in the article shows that the speech used is indeed relative.
The article does not imply that this is a learned skill, since the whole theory is based on function words which are accessible at even the most basic proficiency of a language. It is merely describing what happens to our language when we enter a social interaction.
Note the words used aren't necessarily important but rather the function of the words are, i.e are they referencing social objects ( the role of pronouns) or referencing concrete or abstract non-social objects.
BTW would "authoritative" be closer to what you meant instead of "authoritarian"? A nitpick perhaps but definitely a different shade of meaning!
There's an entire class of people who make a profession out of being able to do that reliably. They're called actors, and they're not the only people who are good at this. This sort of hyperbole in discussions of science may engage some readers but probably alienates at least as many more.
An earlier version of this story ran on NPR in 2012.
Wow - just 3 or 4 new sentences tacked onto the end. I wish they had put this warning at the beginning of the article rather than the end.
I suppose this article is more about listening/reading than speaking/writing, but I reckon most people would easily be able to notice a difference between the example professor and student messages, and put it down on first thoughts to formality. And we certainly notice when people communicate with a level of formality that greatly differs from what we expect from them.
The article says that this might be used for contentious stuff like being able to tell if people are lying, detecting their gender, or economic status. I have my doubts to be honest, and fear the consequences of applying this stuff naively. I suppose if their results check out... but the article doesn't go into that, instead saying the "most interesting work" is about power dynamics. Well that to me is the bleedin' obvious part.
Anyway yes, when I reached that categorical 'puny humans' put down I rolled my eyes and started to scan the rest.
It's rare to see such a perfectly non-self-conscious self-referential statement. Kudos.
The sagepub.com registration is non functional for me... it probably only works in IE...
Edits - Here it is for you lucky Athens users: http://jls.sagepub.com/content/33/3/328.full.pdf+html
I can't help but to wonder if you really can "fake it until you make it". If you force yourself to write in a more "powerful" manner, could that not cause people to perceive you as such and therefore boost your confidence to where you really are that person?
Robert Anton Wilson in one or two of his books gives an exercise similar to this - consciously choosing to remove all absolutes from your conversations. Something like never saying "I am tired" but rather "I feel tired" and not saying "That is bad" but rather "That activity has badness in it" or something like that! Edits - it's called E-Prime and mentioned in another comment in this thread.
The point is that it would be possible to do it, but it would be very difficult and initially very strange.
Combining the two at length seems ferociously difficult.
The added benefit of the Pause is that it makes you look more thoughtful, hence smarter.
Going back to the examples, maybe the usage of personal pronouns is not directly related to the status of the email participants, but instead, is based upon who initiated the email. If the person with lower status is more likely to initiate the email (seems plausible, particularly in academia), then you might see the same results.
If a "lower status" person has to tell someone there are problems, using "I think" softens it and sounds less like an order, which would be weird coming from low-to-high status.
Just about everything people write is an opinion, so why not write in a manner that skips those formalities and gets straight to the point? It might come off as more absolutist, but should make for better writing.
Of course, there are times that you should use a qualifying "I think" or "in my opinion", but when they are absolutely necessary isn't clear to me.
"I think" is only for the purposes of softening a statement, which is sometimes (but not always) what you want.
Another tip that I got as a high-schooler was to not use "very" or "extremely". That also "dilutes your prose" (his words, which were apt). That came up in a recent NY Times Book Review. If you put "very" in front of every adjective, you sound like a high school student who hasn't been corrected yet :)
I sometimes say explicitly when I'm on the fence about an idea ("Mild preference for A because __, though B would be ok"), or if I feel like my currently viewpoint isn't well-considered yet, to encourage others to read with a critical eye -- otherwise the polite default is often to go with the flow if there are no obvious or serious problems, and that can be bad.
A generalized version of this is to never use an adjective/adverb/etc. unless it in some sense contradicts the thing it's applied to. There's no sense just trying to intensify the thing you've already written; the modifier should add new information.
* The theory/hypothesis is not saying avoid pronouns.
* It's about relative frequencies not absolute.
* The pronoun frequency is looked at in different scenarios:
1. between two people who don't know each other
2. between two people who do know each other
3. pronoun frequencies of an individual in a diary, blog over a period of time.
* The words being compared/counted are primarily social identifiers vs determiners and articles.