Four Rules for Clear Communication

WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.680
I did not have sexual relations with that woman,

00:00:02.799 --> 00:00:06.339
Ms. Lewinsky. Okay, so technically true, but

00:00:06.339 --> 00:00:09.660
also very misleading in light of the facts that

00:00:09.660 --> 00:00:12.740
came out later. That's a good example of deliberately

00:00:12.740 --> 00:00:16.899
wordsmithing. Yes. And trying to get away with

00:00:16.899 --> 00:00:19.100
it on a technicality. Yeah. Technically true.

00:00:19.120 --> 00:00:28.070
I didn't inhale. I didn't inhale. Right. Welcome

00:00:28.070 --> 00:00:30.289
to Making Yourself Clear. I'm Chris. I'm Patrick.

00:00:30.429 --> 00:00:32.390
And today we're going to talk about the four

00:00:32.390 --> 00:00:36.149
unwritten rules for clear communication. You

00:00:36.149 --> 00:00:38.750
ever wonder why some conversations flow smoothly?

00:00:39.009 --> 00:00:41.469
You walk away feeling like, okay, I got what

00:00:41.469 --> 00:00:44.250
I needed there. And then other times it's not

00:00:44.250 --> 00:00:46.729
the case, right? You come away going, I feel

00:00:46.729 --> 00:00:48.750
like that person technically answered my question,

00:00:48.869 --> 00:00:51.189
but I really got nothing of value there. That

00:00:51.189 --> 00:00:53.890
was useless. Yeah, I've definitely walked away

00:00:53.890 --> 00:00:55.929
from conversations and just sort of they've been

00:00:55.929 --> 00:00:58.380
head scratchers and been like, That was all over

00:00:58.380 --> 00:01:01.920
the place. I didn't feel like I understood why

00:01:01.920 --> 00:01:05.340
we were in one setting and then hopped to another

00:01:05.340 --> 00:01:07.959
setting. Yeah. When things bounce around, when

00:01:07.959 --> 00:01:10.599
something just feels like it went sideways. Right.

00:01:10.739 --> 00:01:13.540
And obviously this happens in a million different

00:01:13.540 --> 00:01:16.200
ways. But today we're going to talk about these

00:01:16.200 --> 00:01:19.840
four rules or maxims that were developed by this

00:01:19.840 --> 00:01:22.859
guy named Paul Grice. It's a model for understanding

00:01:22.859 --> 00:01:25.480
what works in a conversation and what doesn't.

00:01:25.500 --> 00:01:27.620
So when things fall apart. You can look in one

00:01:27.620 --> 00:01:29.819
of these four buckets and figure out what was

00:01:29.819 --> 00:01:32.920
missing. So Paul Grice was a philosopher of language,

00:01:32.959 --> 00:01:36.879
and he was exploring how it is that people come

00:01:36.879 --> 00:01:39.319
to understand each other in communication, because

00:01:39.319 --> 00:01:40.840
there's the words we use, but then there's a

00:01:40.840 --> 00:01:44.439
lot of meaning that is unsaid, but mostly communication

00:01:44.439 --> 00:01:46.959
works pretty well anyway. And so he had this

00:01:46.959 --> 00:01:49.159
insight that obviously conversations aren't just

00:01:49.159 --> 00:01:53.620
random exchanges. He framed them as cooperative

00:01:53.620 --> 00:01:56.430
efforts. Meaning there's like an intention on

00:01:56.430 --> 00:02:00.049
both sides. We're cooperating, trying to achieve

00:02:00.049 --> 00:02:02.310
a common goal here through this communication

00:02:02.310 --> 00:02:04.409
process. And we assume the other person is also

00:02:04.409 --> 00:02:06.810
cooperating as well. So out of that, he came

00:02:06.810 --> 00:02:09.050
up with this thing called the cooperative principle.

00:02:09.530 --> 00:02:12.750
He worded in a clumsy way. You want to read it?

00:02:12.789 --> 00:02:14.909
It's super old time. Yeah, sure. So we've got

00:02:14.909 --> 00:02:18.090
it here on the screen. It says, make your contribution

00:02:18.090 --> 00:02:22.330
as is required at the stage at which it occurs.

00:02:22.969 --> 00:02:26.349
by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk

00:02:26.349 --> 00:02:30.250
exchange. So super old -timey, turgid prose,

00:02:30.409 --> 00:02:34.389
academic sounding. Which is ironic, given that

00:02:34.389 --> 00:02:37.590
he's talking about clear communication and it's

00:02:37.590 --> 00:02:41.590
just this sort of very, very dense academic sentence.

00:02:42.150 --> 00:02:44.569
Clumsy phrasing. But if we're to translate that

00:02:44.569 --> 00:02:47.590
into just plain English, what's he trying to

00:02:47.590 --> 00:02:50.909
say? He's trying to say, communicate what needs

00:02:50.909 --> 00:02:54.099
to be said. when it needs to be said in a way

00:02:54.099 --> 00:02:56.379
that helps the conversation move forward. Yeah.

00:02:56.460 --> 00:02:58.479
Don't give too much information. Don't give not

00:02:58.479 --> 00:03:01.939
enough information. Stay on topic, you know,

00:03:01.939 --> 00:03:04.740
and deliver it in a way where if you're talking

00:03:04.740 --> 00:03:07.080
to me, I understand what you're saying. Or I

00:03:07.080 --> 00:03:10.219
can follow the plot. Yeah. Yeah. So he broke

00:03:10.219 --> 00:03:12.020
that down. You just kind of summarized the four

00:03:12.020 --> 00:03:16.819
maxims implicitly. Maxims are. Kind of like rules.

00:03:16.919 --> 00:03:18.819
They're not laws that are etched in stone. They're

00:03:18.819 --> 00:03:20.479
not commandments, but they're really good guidelines.

00:03:20.759 --> 00:03:22.560
Right. So it's not like rules with grammar, for

00:03:22.560 --> 00:03:25.860
example, but... Maxims. Maxims. Good word for

00:03:25.860 --> 00:03:28.699
it. So the four maxims are maxim of quantity,

00:03:29.099 --> 00:03:35.159
quality, relation or relevance, and manner. And

00:03:35.159 --> 00:03:36.479
we're going to break down what each of those

00:03:36.479 --> 00:03:40.319
mean. We're going to give examples of some intuitive

00:03:40.319 --> 00:03:42.539
examples of how these apply. We'll talk about

00:03:42.539 --> 00:03:44.340
what happens when you violate each one of them.

00:03:44.439 --> 00:03:46.919
Right. And that's where things get kind of fun.

00:03:47.020 --> 00:03:49.759
They can. They can totally get fun. So let's

00:03:49.759 --> 00:03:51.580
do a little deeper dive into each one. So the

00:03:51.580 --> 00:03:53.020
first one we mentioned was the maximum quantity.

00:03:53.580 --> 00:03:56.840
So saying enough, but not saying too much at

00:03:56.840 --> 00:03:58.400
the same time, right? We want to provide the

00:03:58.400 --> 00:04:01.840
right amount of information, but not so much

00:04:01.840 --> 00:04:04.099
that it just becomes overwhelming or that it's

00:04:04.099 --> 00:04:07.219
not pertinent to what it is that we're saying.

00:04:07.900 --> 00:04:11.000
So, for example, if I were to say to you, Chris,

00:04:11.080 --> 00:04:12.300
what time is the meeting? And then you were to

00:04:12.300 --> 00:04:15.330
say to me, 2 p .m. That's exactly what I needed.

00:04:15.349 --> 00:04:17.509
I know when that is. No need for over explaining.

00:04:18.170 --> 00:04:20.810
But if you were to say, oh, it's tomorrow afternoon.

00:04:21.009 --> 00:04:23.149
Well, okay, great. I know it's tomorrow afternoon,

00:04:23.269 --> 00:04:25.850
but what time? What time? Yeah. Yeah. When I

00:04:25.850 --> 00:04:27.550
said, what time is the meeting? I meant like

00:04:27.550 --> 00:04:30.029
a specific time. So that's not enough information.

00:04:30.029 --> 00:04:32.009
Not enough information for you to say in the

00:04:32.009 --> 00:04:34.649
afternoon. It's uncertain. I don't get the information

00:04:34.649 --> 00:04:37.430
that I need and I don't have the clarification

00:04:37.430 --> 00:04:39.769
that I was seeking. And it's frustrating because

00:04:39.769 --> 00:04:41.910
you're like. Now I have to ask a second question.

00:04:42.050 --> 00:04:43.649
Yeah. And if you had just thought about it a

00:04:43.649 --> 00:04:45.750
little bit, you would know that that's not enough

00:04:45.750 --> 00:04:48.350
information for me to, it doesn't satisfy the

00:04:48.350 --> 00:04:50.430
need that I'm driving at here. So it's not as

00:04:50.430 --> 00:04:52.689
cooperative a conversation as it could have been.

00:04:52.790 --> 00:04:55.730
If you were just listening to me intently and

00:04:55.730 --> 00:04:58.209
you said, oh, time. All right. What time tomorrow?

00:04:58.470 --> 00:05:01.069
2 p .m. 2 p .m. Tomorrow is the time. And then

00:05:01.069 --> 00:05:03.389
on the flip side, there can be too much information.

00:05:03.649 --> 00:05:06.370
Right. So too much information would be like

00:05:06.370 --> 00:05:08.269
if I, same question, what time is the meeting

00:05:08.269 --> 00:05:11.069
tomorrow? And you say. Oh, it's tomorrow at 2

00:05:11.069 --> 00:05:13.269
p .m. It's on the third floor in the boardroom,

00:05:13.329 --> 00:05:16.110
just after our finance call. The finance calls

00:05:16.110 --> 00:05:18.009
usually go a little long, so it might be a little

00:05:18.009 --> 00:05:20.149
later than that. Oh, also, I think Sarah's going

00:05:20.149 --> 00:05:22.149
to be there, and Sarah's super annoying. And

00:05:22.149 --> 00:05:24.189
at this point, I'm just waiting for an exit.

00:05:24.250 --> 00:05:26.810
I got what I needed in the first, literally the

00:05:26.810 --> 00:05:29.089
first word you said was 2 p .m. I got what I

00:05:29.089 --> 00:05:32.170
need, and now I'm just suffering. I'm enduring

00:05:32.170 --> 00:05:35.970
you, and I'm waiting for this to be over. One

00:05:35.970 --> 00:05:37.949
place this shows up, well, two that come to mind.

00:05:37.970 --> 00:05:41.670
One is if I ask someone for the address, what's

00:05:41.670 --> 00:05:43.870
the address of that place we're going? And they

00:05:43.870 --> 00:05:46.430
launch into a lengthy set of directions. Oh,

00:05:46.430 --> 00:05:48.350
yeah. Right. Turn left on Bathurst. And then

00:05:48.350 --> 00:05:50.430
when you get to the KFC, you've gone too far.

00:05:50.850 --> 00:05:53.129
And it's like especially directions that involve

00:05:53.129 --> 00:05:55.529
landmarks. And I can tell they're walking through

00:05:55.529 --> 00:05:57.589
it in their mind. Yeah. Especially if it's an

00:05:57.589 --> 00:05:59.350
area of town you've never been or it's a place

00:05:59.350 --> 00:06:02.189
you've never been. None of that helps me. Also,

00:06:02.230 --> 00:06:04.750
it's 2025. I'm going to put it in my Google Maps.

00:06:04.889 --> 00:06:06.569
Absolutely. I don't need the directions. Well,

00:06:06.649 --> 00:06:08.089
and if you had needed directions, you would have

00:06:08.089 --> 00:06:10.350
said, could you give me the directions, not where

00:06:10.350 --> 00:06:14.129
are we going? Right. Or what's the address? Yeah.

00:06:14.189 --> 00:06:16.050
I just want the address. I'm putting it into

00:06:16.050 --> 00:06:17.589
Google Maps and it's going to give me directions

00:06:17.589 --> 00:06:19.269
that are better than the ones you're giving me

00:06:19.269 --> 00:06:21.910
anyway. And now you're giving me too much. Another

00:06:21.910 --> 00:06:25.209
one of maybe a less comical example. This happens

00:06:25.209 --> 00:06:27.850
all the time with highly technical people giving

00:06:27.850 --> 00:06:30.769
presentations. to a less technical audience.

00:06:30.889 --> 00:06:33.689
Oh yeah. Like a presentation to senior management

00:06:33.689 --> 00:06:35.629
and it's an engineer giving the presentation

00:06:35.629 --> 00:06:37.910
or to a salesperson. I was working with a group

00:06:37.910 --> 00:06:39.990
of engineers today actually. And yeah, they have

00:06:39.990 --> 00:06:41.389
a very sort of specific way of communicating

00:06:41.389 --> 00:06:44.329
with one another that does not work for just,

00:06:44.470 --> 00:06:48.089
you know, they love the details and they can

00:06:48.089 --> 00:06:49.790
lose sight of the fact that not everyone has

00:06:49.790 --> 00:06:51.769
the same technical background. And so they'll

00:06:51.769 --> 00:06:54.110
just, they'll talk right over people's heads.

00:06:54.449 --> 00:06:57.269
Yeah. And then wonder why the communication misses

00:06:57.269 --> 00:07:00.009
the mark and maybe won't notice when their audience's

00:07:00.009 --> 00:07:03.050
eyes are completely glazed over. So that would

00:07:03.050 --> 00:07:05.509
be a violation of this quantity maximum on the

00:07:05.509 --> 00:07:07.730
side of too much. You're giving me way too much

00:07:07.730 --> 00:07:10.269
information, way too much detail. So just enough

00:07:10.269 --> 00:07:13.670
that I know the answer to my question and no

00:07:13.670 --> 00:07:16.209
more, no less. A way that I've come to think

00:07:16.209 --> 00:07:18.670
about communication is I put on my product manager

00:07:18.670 --> 00:07:22.050
hat from... in my days as a product guy. And

00:07:22.050 --> 00:07:25.110
if you think of the communication as a product

00:07:25.110 --> 00:07:28.750
or as a feature as part of a product, from the

00:07:28.750 --> 00:07:30.730
product manager perspective, there's a few things

00:07:30.730 --> 00:07:32.470
you think about. You say, okay, who's my user

00:07:32.470 --> 00:07:35.990
avatar? Who's my end user? And what's a description

00:07:35.990 --> 00:07:39.029
of their archetype? What was their level of technical

00:07:39.029 --> 00:07:42.250
sophistication? Are they busy? Do they have lots

00:07:42.250 --> 00:07:43.709
of time on their hands? Are they highly technical?

00:07:43.889 --> 00:07:45.670
Are they like an old grandmother who's afraid

00:07:45.670 --> 00:07:48.899
of her toaster? Who am I dealing with? And then

00:07:48.899 --> 00:07:51.459
what's the use case? If my communication is a

00:07:51.459 --> 00:07:53.379
product, what are they going to do with it? Right.

00:07:53.660 --> 00:07:56.480
And from there, if I know who they are and what

00:07:56.480 --> 00:07:58.600
they're trying to accomplish, I can tailor the

00:07:58.600 --> 00:08:01.060
information I'm providing in such a way that

00:08:01.060 --> 00:08:02.879
it helps them achieve their goal. So there's

00:08:02.879 --> 00:08:05.500
a use case and a user. The key there is the focus

00:08:05.500 --> 00:08:07.639
is on the other person and how can I be most

00:08:07.639 --> 00:08:10.180
helpful to them? And that'll tell you how much

00:08:10.180 --> 00:08:12.959
information to give them. And it'll also give

00:08:12.959 --> 00:08:15.920
you some clues about the language to use, what

00:08:15.920 --> 00:08:18.319
level of abstraction. So quantity. Say enough,

00:08:18.459 --> 00:08:21.060
but not too much. That's basically what that

00:08:21.060 --> 00:08:23.199
one means. So as we're going through these, take

00:08:23.199 --> 00:08:25.819
a minute and pause and reflect and say, am I

00:08:25.819 --> 00:08:27.480
the kind of person who gives too much detail?

00:08:27.600 --> 00:08:29.540
Am I the kind of person who doesn't give quite

00:08:29.540 --> 00:08:31.839
enough detail? So if you violate this one with

00:08:31.839 --> 00:08:33.919
too little information, you haven't really answered

00:08:33.919 --> 00:08:36.059
their question and they're going to come back

00:08:36.059 --> 00:08:37.679
with follow -up questions. They might be frustrated

00:08:37.679 --> 00:08:39.860
because I asked you for a dollar and you gave

00:08:39.860 --> 00:08:42.940
me a nickel. I need a little more. And then on

00:08:42.940 --> 00:08:44.779
the other side, too much is information fatigue.

00:08:45.599 --> 00:08:48.539
People tune out. It becomes effortful to listen.

00:08:48.820 --> 00:08:50.879
And that's not asking for a dollar and getting

00:08:50.879 --> 00:08:54.179
10. No, it's asking for a dollar and getting

00:08:54.179 --> 00:08:57.039
100 pennies strewn across the backyard and you've

00:08:57.039 --> 00:09:00.500
got to go collect them. That's quantity. That's

00:09:00.500 --> 00:09:02.440
quantity. Yeah, that's good. I like that. So

00:09:02.440 --> 00:09:04.820
practically speaking, check in with yourself.

00:09:05.299 --> 00:09:07.659
Ask, what does this person need to know right

00:09:07.659 --> 00:09:09.620
now? What are they trying to do and what do they

00:09:09.620 --> 00:09:12.340
need right now? And then give them that and only

00:09:12.340 --> 00:09:16.750
that. Second maxim is quality. Yes. So when we're

00:09:16.750 --> 00:09:18.809
talking about quality, it's what you believe

00:09:18.809 --> 00:09:21.929
to be true. I'm not making things up. I'm not

00:09:21.929 --> 00:09:24.590
saying something that I think, you know, maybe

00:09:24.590 --> 00:09:26.210
is true, but I don't have enough evidence to

00:09:26.210 --> 00:09:28.730
support it. And you're not lying. I'm not lying.

00:09:28.789 --> 00:09:32.789
Yeah. So say what you believe to be true and

00:09:32.789 --> 00:09:35.090
don't say anything that you don't have evidence

00:09:35.090 --> 00:09:37.490
to support. Yeah. And those are related, but

00:09:37.490 --> 00:09:39.889
separate concepts. The first thing is sort of

00:09:39.889 --> 00:09:41.610
obvious. Don't lie. Don't say something you know

00:09:41.610 --> 00:09:43.960
to be false because that's. clearly not cooperative

00:09:43.960 --> 00:09:47.639
then there's what you believe to be true which

00:09:47.639 --> 00:09:49.940
is related to but not the same as what you have

00:09:49.940 --> 00:09:52.379
good evidence for because there are people who

00:09:52.379 --> 00:09:54.559
believe that the earth is flat right and they

00:09:54.559 --> 00:09:58.200
some of them genuinely believe that but you don't

00:09:58.200 --> 00:10:01.080
have good evidence for that belief no so well

00:10:01.080 --> 00:10:03.740
they would argue that they have that's a that's

00:10:03.740 --> 00:10:05.639
a whole other i'm not gonna go down that road

00:10:05.639 --> 00:10:10.960
but it's check in with yourself not just i think

00:10:10.960 --> 00:10:14.200
this is true but do I have it on good evidence?

00:10:14.320 --> 00:10:16.960
Like how solid is my belief? What's the basis

00:10:16.960 --> 00:10:20.419
for it? And we're not saying that if you don't

00:10:20.419 --> 00:10:22.620
have high confidence or good evidence, you can't

00:10:22.620 --> 00:10:25.159
say anything. It's just qualify it. Say, you

00:10:25.159 --> 00:10:26.899
know what? I'm not sure about this. If I had

00:10:26.899 --> 00:10:29.379
to take a guess, I would say X or Y. Or you can

00:10:29.379 --> 00:10:31.000
say, you know what? I've seen the numbers. I've

00:10:31.000 --> 00:10:33.440
thought about this a lot. I'm like very confident

00:10:33.440 --> 00:10:36.419
in this. Specify your level of confidence so

00:10:36.419 --> 00:10:38.320
that the person knows how much weight to attribute

00:10:38.320 --> 00:10:40.200
to it. Yeah. Well, I mean, that's perfect, right?

00:10:40.220 --> 00:10:42.840
If you were to say to me, Listen, I'm not sure

00:10:42.840 --> 00:10:45.539
I have the answer, but here's what I think based

00:10:45.539 --> 00:10:47.899
on what I know. You've given me everything I

00:10:47.899 --> 00:10:49.899
need there for me to qualify what you've said

00:10:49.899 --> 00:10:52.440
and for me to understand. Yeah. And if I'm going

00:10:52.440 --> 00:10:55.000
to make an educated guess, I'll say, I don't

00:10:55.000 --> 00:10:56.899
actually know. Yeah. For whatever it's worth,

00:10:56.980 --> 00:10:59.080
this would be my intuition about it. And then

00:10:59.080 --> 00:11:01.620
the person can take that for what it's worth.

00:11:01.679 --> 00:11:05.960
But I haven't misrepresented the certainty or

00:11:05.960 --> 00:11:09.080
the confidence that they should have in the statement

00:11:09.080 --> 00:11:12.659
I'm about to make. Yeah. Examples of following

00:11:12.659 --> 00:11:15.559
that maxim would be if I were to say, do you

00:11:15.559 --> 00:11:17.899
know if we're close to hitting the numbers that

00:11:17.899 --> 00:11:20.419
we hit last year? And then you say, well, I haven't

00:11:20.419 --> 00:11:22.240
seen the report, but I believe the numbers are

00:11:22.240 --> 00:11:25.220
close to last quarter's. That's good quality

00:11:25.220 --> 00:11:28.080
information. Yeah, I'm specifying it as opposed

00:11:28.080 --> 00:11:29.399
to saying something like, oh, yeah, yeah, we'll

00:11:29.399 --> 00:11:30.740
be fine. We're going to beat the numbers, even

00:11:30.740 --> 00:11:33.179
though I haven't looked at the data. Right. Now,

00:11:33.200 --> 00:11:36.039
you might take from that a higher level of certainty

00:11:36.039 --> 00:11:38.429
than is warranted. Right. Yeah. Well, he seemed

00:11:38.429 --> 00:11:40.370
very confident when he said it, so. Right. And

00:11:40.370 --> 00:11:42.009
then you might go and make decisions based on

00:11:42.009 --> 00:11:44.870
that. And I have not cooperated because I've

00:11:44.870 --> 00:11:47.950
set you up to make bad decisions. Yeah. Or to

00:11:47.950 --> 00:11:50.970
have a belief in something that's not justified.

00:11:51.090 --> 00:11:53.070
Why have you set me up with a sense of false

00:11:53.070 --> 00:11:55.429
confidence so that I'm going in saying, yeah,

00:11:55.450 --> 00:11:57.750
yep, I heard it from Chris and he would know.

00:11:57.830 --> 00:12:00.149
He reads the reports. Trust me, the earth's flat.

00:12:00.690 --> 00:12:03.049
Right. Just go with it. Trust me. Yeah, yeah.

00:12:03.169 --> 00:12:04.870
I can see the other side of the street, so it

00:12:04.870 --> 00:12:07.679
must be. It must be flat. Totally. The impact,

00:12:07.799 --> 00:12:10.320
the impact that this has, I don't trust you.

00:12:10.559 --> 00:12:13.279
Once I find out the truth, there's an erosion

00:12:13.279 --> 00:12:15.960
of trust there. Or potentially I spread that

00:12:15.960 --> 00:12:17.860
information around. Somebody asks me the same

00:12:17.860 --> 00:12:19.620
question and I give them the same answer that

00:12:19.620 --> 00:12:21.279
you gave me. And then that hurts your credibility.

00:12:21.559 --> 00:12:24.460
That's right. And it's funny because we communicate

00:12:24.460 --> 00:12:27.279
our level of confidence in something often in

00:12:27.279 --> 00:12:29.840
body language and tone of voice. And there's

00:12:29.840 --> 00:12:32.159
an air of certainty that people can project.

00:12:32.320 --> 00:12:35.639
And in the moment, it's quite convincing. If

00:12:35.639 --> 00:12:38.330
someone says, I'm sure this, I know what I'm

00:12:38.330 --> 00:12:39.990
talking about, bang, bang, bang. We're more likely

00:12:39.990 --> 00:12:42.909
to take them seriously. And I've had people who

00:12:42.909 --> 00:12:45.210
are very bold in their communication. And if

00:12:45.210 --> 00:12:47.409
I later find out that they were just wrong or

00:12:47.409 --> 00:12:49.490
that they don't really know what they're talking

00:12:49.490 --> 00:12:52.309
about, now I'm, that's a charlatan. I've got

00:12:52.309 --> 00:12:54.809
a great personal example for this. My band was

00:12:54.809 --> 00:12:58.590
playing a show at this old rundown farm and it

00:12:58.590 --> 00:13:01.789
was nice, hot August night. And so we're playing

00:13:01.789 --> 00:13:04.830
it in this old rundown barn. And I say to one

00:13:04.830 --> 00:13:07.110
of the guys who I believe to be the owner at

00:13:07.110 --> 00:13:09.230
the time, who I found out was not, said like,

00:13:09.269 --> 00:13:11.509
how strong is this thing? Would it be, would

00:13:11.509 --> 00:13:13.169
it be all right if I like got up on top and like

00:13:13.169 --> 00:13:14.990
started singing from up top? He goes, yeah, it's

00:13:14.990 --> 00:13:16.470
strong enough. And he sort of gave it a little

00:13:16.470 --> 00:13:19.490
pat and I was like, okay, great. And then after

00:13:19.490 --> 00:13:22.490
we finished our set, I got down and I had swaths

00:13:22.490 --> 00:13:24.470
of people coming over and said, I've been coming

00:13:24.470 --> 00:13:26.269
to this festival for years. I can't, you're the

00:13:26.269 --> 00:13:28.370
first person I've ever seen do that. And I can't

00:13:28.370 --> 00:13:30.610
believe that you trusted that old thing. And

00:13:30.610 --> 00:13:32.480
I was like, oh. I didn't have the information

00:13:32.480 --> 00:13:34.740
right at all, but he seemed so confident when

00:13:34.740 --> 00:13:37.240
he said, yeah, this thing, this old girl, it'll

00:13:37.240 --> 00:13:40.360
hold. Yeah, it'll hold. And here's me, like I

00:13:40.360 --> 00:13:41.899
could have put my foot straight through the thing

00:13:41.899 --> 00:13:44.759
or worse, fallen on top of a guitar player. So

00:13:44.759 --> 00:13:48.440
yeah. Right. So check in with yourself, be mindful

00:13:48.440 --> 00:13:51.460
of how sure you are and not just how sure you

00:13:51.460 --> 00:13:54.139
feel because there's that subjective feeling

00:13:54.139 --> 00:13:57.139
of confidence in something. I actually read about

00:13:57.139 --> 00:13:59.539
this somewhere and it's fascinating. When we

00:13:59.539 --> 00:14:02.610
do that intuitive check, for that feeling of

00:14:02.610 --> 00:14:06.909
confidence in a statement or a belief, it's based

00:14:06.909 --> 00:14:10.690
on two things. It's firstly based on how easily

00:14:10.690 --> 00:14:13.090
it comes to mind. So how accessible that thought

00:14:13.090 --> 00:14:16.350
or memory or fact is. So it came to mind easily.

00:14:16.389 --> 00:14:19.370
And then how internally consistent it feels.

00:14:19.429 --> 00:14:23.110
In other words, if I don't also have in my consciousness

00:14:23.110 --> 00:14:26.009
a contradicting thought. Right. So it popped

00:14:26.009 --> 00:14:27.690
into my head and I can't think of anything that

00:14:27.690 --> 00:14:30.190
contradicts it. High certainty. Yeah. What you'll

00:14:30.190 --> 00:14:32.210
notice about those two things that our brains

00:14:32.210 --> 00:14:34.090
do to determine our level of confidence is that

00:14:34.090 --> 00:14:36.830
neither of those checks have anything to do with

00:14:36.830 --> 00:14:38.769
what's out there in the actual reality. None

00:14:38.769 --> 00:14:41.629
of those are evidence based. They're just it's

00:14:41.629 --> 00:14:44.870
just a cognitive smoothness versus dissonance

00:14:44.870 --> 00:14:47.070
thing. Right. And it's entirely based on what

00:14:47.070 --> 00:14:49.590
my database could call up on a moment's notice.

00:14:49.690 --> 00:14:52.769
So don't trust your subjective feeling of confidence.

00:14:53.990 --> 00:14:56.370
Check in with the evidence. How do I know this?

00:14:56.429 --> 00:14:59.860
Right. Did I just hear it from some guy? Yeah.

00:14:59.919 --> 00:15:02.600
Or is this a subject I've researched? Or did

00:15:02.600 --> 00:15:04.980
I read it from a credible source? Yeah. Did I

00:15:04.980 --> 00:15:08.100
ask the guy, hey, is this your barn? Right. Is

00:15:08.100 --> 00:15:10.559
this your barn? Are you a structural engineer?

00:15:10.720 --> 00:15:13.000
Yeah. Yeah. How do you know this thing's safe?

00:15:13.299 --> 00:15:15.700
When was the last time this structure was inspected?

00:15:15.840 --> 00:15:17.559
I spoke to him after. He said, well, it looks

00:15:17.559 --> 00:15:20.940
safe to me. Looked good to me. Exactly. So check

00:15:20.940 --> 00:15:22.779
in. Like, did I get this from a reliable source?

00:15:22.940 --> 00:15:25.139
Yeah. Because mostly we don't do primary research

00:15:25.139 --> 00:15:28.190
to determine what's true or not. Mostly we rely

00:15:28.190 --> 00:15:30.929
on information we got secondhand. But is your

00:15:30.929 --> 00:15:32.970
source good? Is it just something that floated

00:15:32.970 --> 00:15:36.350
by on Facebook? Yeah. Or did it come from like

00:15:36.350 --> 00:15:39.529
a peer -reviewed source or a trusted news publication?

00:15:40.169 --> 00:15:42.409
That's not to say don't say something if you're

00:15:42.409 --> 00:15:45.470
not sure. It's just be explicit about the level

00:15:45.470 --> 00:15:48.690
of justification for your belief in a thing.

00:15:49.309 --> 00:15:51.389
Like, I don't know. Here's what I would guess

00:15:51.389 --> 00:15:54.190
versus, no, I did my PhD dissertation on this.

00:15:54.769 --> 00:15:58.379
You should probably listen to me. So again, check

00:15:58.379 --> 00:16:01.399
in with yourself. Is this a rule or a maxim that

00:16:01.399 --> 00:16:03.740
you violate sometimes or often when you're having

00:16:03.740 --> 00:16:05.899
conversations? And what can you do to clean up

00:16:05.899 --> 00:16:09.460
those areas to have better and more cooperative

00:16:09.460 --> 00:16:11.720
conversations with other people? One little phrase

00:16:11.720 --> 00:16:13.580
here that I like on this one is this idea of

00:16:13.580 --> 00:16:18.200
epistemic humility. So epistemic from epistemology,

00:16:18.340 --> 00:16:21.120
which is the study of knowledge. How do we come

00:16:21.120 --> 00:16:23.960
to know things? What are valid knowledge claims?

00:16:24.179 --> 00:16:26.539
What's the solid basis for claiming to know something?

00:16:27.000 --> 00:16:28.840
We should probably do a whole other episode on

00:16:28.840 --> 00:16:32.159
epistemology. Yeah. But have some humility there.

00:16:32.259 --> 00:16:34.100
You can speak confidently within your knowledge

00:16:34.100 --> 00:16:36.179
zone, stuff you know well. So that's something

00:16:36.179 --> 00:16:37.820
you did earlier, right? You said, well, to the

00:16:37.820 --> 00:16:40.559
best of my knowledge. Right. Yeah. But in the

00:16:40.559 --> 00:16:45.139
aftermath of the 2020 election, when there was

00:16:45.139 --> 00:16:48.019
a bunch of conspiracy stuff floating around social

00:16:48.019 --> 00:16:51.350
media about elections technology. Yep. And specifically

00:16:51.350 --> 00:16:53.470
about elections technology from Dominion Voting

00:16:53.470 --> 00:16:55.470
Systems, my former company, where I was a product

00:16:55.470 --> 00:16:57.149
manager for 13 years. Where you had quite a bit

00:16:57.149 --> 00:16:59.809
of knowledge. I'm an expert on that. Yep. Firsthand,

00:16:59.809 --> 00:17:02.350
actual expert. So I was speaking with a high

00:17:02.350 --> 00:17:03.870
degree of confidence and I was making sure people

00:17:03.870 --> 00:17:06.349
knew that. Like I was the product manager on

00:17:06.349 --> 00:17:08.930
this product line for a decade. Yeah. You should

00:17:08.930 --> 00:17:11.390
listen to me. I know my stuff. Be clear on how

00:17:11.390 --> 00:17:13.250
well you know something and what the basis is

00:17:13.250 --> 00:17:15.509
for your knowledge. What's our third maxim? Maxim

00:17:15.509 --> 00:17:19.009
of relation or relevance. Okay. So relation.

00:17:20.279 --> 00:17:22.180
Relevance is the word I prefer. Relevance is

00:17:22.180 --> 00:17:25.039
a word that I think works better as well, but

00:17:25.039 --> 00:17:28.299
we're talking language that's based in philosophical

00:17:28.299 --> 00:17:30.839
concepts, philosophy, and so that sort of thing.

00:17:30.900 --> 00:17:32.640
So they have their pretentious philosopher speak,

00:17:32.819 --> 00:17:35.460
but relation, it's related to the topic. Shots

00:17:35.460 --> 00:17:37.319
fired to all the philosophers. Shots fired, shots

00:17:37.319 --> 00:17:40.740
fired. Relation is what you're sharing related

00:17:40.740 --> 00:17:44.000
to the topic at hand or to the objective, to

00:17:44.000 --> 00:17:46.220
what the other person is trying to achieve in

00:17:46.220 --> 00:17:49.210
the conversation. So what would be an example

00:17:49.210 --> 00:17:52.029
of following that maxim if I'm trying to be relevant?

00:17:52.430 --> 00:17:55.730
Some of it came up earlier in the quantity thing

00:17:55.730 --> 00:17:57.369
when it was like, what time's the meeting? 2

00:17:57.369 --> 00:17:59.589
p .m. But then you went off into talking about

00:17:59.589 --> 00:18:01.710
Sarah. Right. I did. Yeah. How long the finance

00:18:01.710 --> 00:18:04.289
meetings go. And that's not just extra, but all

00:18:04.289 --> 00:18:07.329
the extra was not really relevant. Right. Doesn't

00:18:07.329 --> 00:18:10.230
help. Yeah. This one shows up a lot when you

00:18:10.230 --> 00:18:12.670
think about ways that people dodge questions

00:18:12.670 --> 00:18:14.930
or deceive each other. If you think of the politician.

00:18:15.470 --> 00:18:17.529
Someone will ask a very specific direct question.

00:18:17.569 --> 00:18:19.869
Yeah. And then they just ignore the question

00:18:19.869 --> 00:18:21.029
and they go right to their talking. And that

00:18:21.029 --> 00:18:23.170
is becoming more and more commonplace. Yeah.

00:18:23.170 --> 00:18:26.369
Yes. Like you'll ask about, what do you think

00:18:26.369 --> 00:18:28.109
of such and such immigration policy? Well, what

00:18:28.109 --> 00:18:30.750
about Hunter Biden's laptop? Right. Okay. What

00:18:30.750 --> 00:18:32.269
does that have to do with immigration policy?

00:18:32.269 --> 00:18:34.170
Yeah. Yeah. That's a tactic, right? Answer the

00:18:34.170 --> 00:18:36.390
question that you want them to have asked rather

00:18:36.390 --> 00:18:38.839
than the question that they did. Yeah. That's

00:18:38.839 --> 00:18:40.980
a way that people violate this in order to dodge

00:18:40.980 --> 00:18:43.359
the question. Right. So following the maxim would

00:18:43.359 --> 00:18:46.119
be if I were to say, are we ready to launch the

00:18:46.119 --> 00:18:48.539
campaign? And then you say, well, no, we're still

00:18:48.539 --> 00:18:50.880
waiting on some approvals. Legal haven't gone

00:18:50.880 --> 00:18:53.759
through it yet. So we need to wait. Right. Waiting

00:18:53.759 --> 00:18:56.059
on legal approval is some relevant background

00:18:56.059 --> 00:18:58.220
to why the answer is no, we're not ready to launch.

00:18:58.339 --> 00:19:00.359
And here's some background on why, which is relevant.

00:19:00.440 --> 00:19:02.319
But if you were to say something like, well,

00:19:02.420 --> 00:19:05.809
you know, these things are complicated and. You

00:19:05.809 --> 00:19:07.549
know, let's talk about HR, right? We don't have

00:19:07.549 --> 00:19:08.869
the headcount we need and blah, blah, blah. And

00:19:08.869 --> 00:19:11.569
that's HR's fault. Okay. We're off track here

00:19:11.569 --> 00:19:13.490
and it doesn't really help me. Yeah. I was asking

00:19:13.490 --> 00:19:15.109
you about launching a campaign and now you're

00:19:15.109 --> 00:19:16.869
telling me that you don't like the HR lady. Now

00:19:16.869 --> 00:19:18.789
you're talking about whose fault it is that we're

00:19:18.789 --> 00:19:20.289
not going to launch on time. I didn't ask whose

00:19:20.289 --> 00:19:22.930
fault it was. I just want the facts that are

00:19:22.930 --> 00:19:26.430
relevant. So stay on topic. Don't change the

00:19:26.430 --> 00:19:29.170
subject. Don't try to dodge the question. This

00:19:29.170 --> 00:19:31.460
is where people can get evasive. Which can be

00:19:31.460 --> 00:19:33.380
an incredibly frustrating experience, right?

00:19:33.440 --> 00:19:35.160
When people are dodging your questions or they're

00:19:35.160 --> 00:19:36.759
not answering the questions that you're asking,

00:19:36.880 --> 00:19:39.220
it makes you feel like they're wasting your time.

00:19:39.400 --> 00:19:41.940
The conversation can really tank very quickly.

00:19:42.079 --> 00:19:45.200
It can. And this is one where people talk past

00:19:45.200 --> 00:19:48.200
each other, I think, a lot in conflict. Here's

00:19:48.200 --> 00:19:50.160
where it's good to clarify intent because we

00:19:50.160 --> 00:19:52.900
sometimes end up on different pages in a conversation

00:19:52.900 --> 00:19:58.359
if our intention shifts. let's say you want to

00:19:58.359 --> 00:20:00.019
give me feedback on something I didn't do very

00:20:00.019 --> 00:20:02.000
well or something I said that upset you. Yeah.

00:20:02.059 --> 00:20:04.400
And you're giving me the feedback. And if your

00:20:04.400 --> 00:20:06.180
intention is this is a cooperative dialogue and

00:20:06.180 --> 00:20:08.160
you want to show me a blind spot, let's say you

00:20:08.160 --> 00:20:09.259
said, hey, when you said that thing, it hurt

00:20:09.259 --> 00:20:11.640
my feelings. Next time, can you not make fun

00:20:11.640 --> 00:20:13.980
of me in public? Okay, yes. Yes, I can. No, I

00:20:13.980 --> 00:20:16.589
can't. Whatever. But I might also say, well,

00:20:16.670 --> 00:20:18.769
it's not my fault or you did it too. Right. Yeah.

00:20:18.910 --> 00:20:21.069
You know, all the defensive stuff is actually

00:20:21.069 --> 00:20:23.569
not relevant to the intention and it changes

00:20:23.569 --> 00:20:25.890
the topic. Now I'm not actually cooperating.

00:20:25.890 --> 00:20:28.130
Now I'm deflecting and defending. Yeah. And I

00:20:28.130 --> 00:20:32.089
have changed the intent of the conversation without

00:20:32.089 --> 00:20:34.109
disclosing it. And now we're talking at cross

00:20:34.109 --> 00:20:35.970
purposes. Yeah. That's literally what it is.

00:20:36.049 --> 00:20:37.970
Well, last week you said you would empty the

00:20:37.970 --> 00:20:39.710
dishwasher and you didn't. And when I came home

00:20:39.710 --> 00:20:41.670
from work, I was tired and I had to do it. Well,

00:20:41.710 --> 00:20:43.750
you didn't walk the dog. Right. Yeah, exactly.

00:20:44.009 --> 00:20:46.750
Right. Okay. Irrelevant. Not relevant to the,

00:20:46.750 --> 00:20:48.589
we can talk about that, but we're talking about

00:20:48.589 --> 00:20:50.809
this right now. Yeah. It's a thing we do. We

00:20:50.809 --> 00:20:53.230
deflect, we change the subject in order to avoid

00:20:53.230 --> 00:20:55.789
blame, let's say. Sure. And then you're not cooperating

00:20:55.789 --> 00:20:57.410
anymore. Yeah. And that's the key thing. These

00:20:57.410 --> 00:20:59.490
are the four maxims of. A cooperative conversation.

00:20:59.930 --> 00:21:01.990
It's the cooperative principle, right? So if

00:21:01.990 --> 00:21:04.210
I change the subject, if I dodge, if I parry,

00:21:04.210 --> 00:21:08.650
if I deflect, all the whataboutism is uncooperative

00:21:08.650 --> 00:21:12.500
and that's why it doesn't work. And it. Pisses

00:21:12.500 --> 00:21:15.380
people off. Yeah, absolutely. So again, if you're

00:21:15.380 --> 00:21:17.000
checking in with yourself, you know, which of

00:21:17.000 --> 00:21:18.960
these maxims do you break or do you not adhere

00:21:18.960 --> 00:21:22.160
to? This is one that probably many of us have

00:21:22.160 --> 00:21:25.059
difficulty towing the line on, especially in

00:21:25.059 --> 00:21:27.880
those high conflict moments like Chris just mentioned.

00:21:28.160 --> 00:21:31.000
Or if you just, if you're someone who just really

00:21:31.000 --> 00:21:33.279
likes to talk or if you know someone like this,

00:21:33.400 --> 00:21:35.740
they start down a line of thought and they're

00:21:35.740 --> 00:21:37.660
telling a story and then it goes off on a tangent

00:21:37.660 --> 00:21:40.279
and then the tangent takes another tangent. And

00:21:40.279 --> 00:21:41.910
before you know it, you're like. Where are we

00:21:41.910 --> 00:21:43.970
going here? Yeah. What's like, this is just a

00:21:43.970 --> 00:21:45.910
stream of consciousness rant and I don't even

00:21:45.910 --> 00:21:47.750
know what the, I've lost the plot completely.

00:21:48.569 --> 00:21:50.930
So that's relation. How does what you're saying

00:21:50.930 --> 00:21:55.410
relate back to the original content? To the intent.

00:21:55.470 --> 00:21:57.410
How does it help move things forward? Yeah. There's

00:21:57.410 --> 00:21:58.589
another way of looking at it. That's a good one.

00:21:58.650 --> 00:22:01.710
Yep. And then, so those are the first three.

00:22:01.730 --> 00:22:03.569
We've got one more, right? There are four maxims.

00:22:03.569 --> 00:22:05.670
Yeah. Fourth one's called the maxim of manner.

00:22:06.009 --> 00:22:09.190
And this one's about being clear, unambiguous,

00:22:09.190 --> 00:22:12.799
and. orderly or structured. Manner is a tough

00:22:12.799 --> 00:22:15.339
word to decipher here. I like to think of it

00:22:15.339 --> 00:22:17.519
as clarity. Instead, it helps me sort of wrap

00:22:17.519 --> 00:22:19.319
my head around it a little better. Two things

00:22:19.319 --> 00:22:20.799
come to mind for me when I think about it. One

00:22:20.799 --> 00:22:24.460
is in your word choice. Sometimes we use ambiguous,

00:22:24.500 --> 00:22:27.400
fuzzy language that's overly general or abstract.

00:22:27.819 --> 00:22:30.740
Again, politicians speak in what they call glittering

00:22:30.740 --> 00:22:33.559
generalities. And it's like, I know what all

00:22:33.559 --> 00:22:35.519
of those words mean, but there's not much for

00:22:35.519 --> 00:22:36.859
me to grab on to. Yeah, there's just kind of

00:22:36.859 --> 00:22:39.920
a word salad there. It's a word salad. So use

00:22:40.509 --> 00:22:43.829
crisp, precise, concrete language rather than

00:22:43.829 --> 00:22:47.930
fuzzy, vague, ambiguous language? Yeah. I mean,

00:22:47.950 --> 00:22:49.769
manner, the manner in which we speak to one another

00:22:49.769 --> 00:22:51.589
or another way to put that would be the way we

00:22:51.589 --> 00:22:53.190
speak to one another, right? So the way I speak

00:22:53.190 --> 00:22:55.809
to you, if it's ambiguous and if it's fuzzy and

00:22:55.809 --> 00:22:58.269
it's in glittering generalities, then we're not

00:22:58.269 --> 00:23:00.730
having a cooperative conversation. But if the

00:23:00.730 --> 00:23:02.829
manner in which I speak to you is clear, it's

00:23:02.829 --> 00:23:06.970
orderly and I avoid ambiguity, then all that

00:23:06.970 --> 00:23:08.950
information that I'm trying to convey is you've

00:23:08.950 --> 00:23:10.960
got clarity around it. Yeah, because if you're

00:23:10.960 --> 00:23:14.900
using fuzzy, ambiguous wording, I've got to guess

00:23:14.900 --> 00:23:17.400
what you mean to some extent. Or the words you

00:23:17.400 --> 00:23:19.259
use could have multiple meanings in this given

00:23:19.259 --> 00:23:21.200
context and I could get it wrong. So you're not

00:23:21.200 --> 00:23:23.440
really helping me understand you if you're choosing

00:23:23.440 --> 00:23:25.660
words that could mean more than one thing. Or

00:23:25.660 --> 00:23:27.660
if you're beating around the bush and now I've

00:23:27.660 --> 00:23:29.900
got to do the heavy lifting to try to interpolate

00:23:29.900 --> 00:23:32.319
and figure out what you mean. Don't make me work

00:23:32.319 --> 00:23:33.740
any harder than I have to to figure out what

00:23:33.740 --> 00:23:36.000
you're saying. Just say it. So be direct. Use

00:23:36.000 --> 00:23:38.180
simple language. Well, you sort of brought it

00:23:38.180 --> 00:23:40.339
up before when you were talking about when you

00:23:40.339 --> 00:23:43.039
think about the person this conversation is for,

00:23:43.220 --> 00:23:45.440
right? Or when you're writing technical. A spec.

00:23:45.579 --> 00:23:49.460
Yeah. So clear, you know, here's step one, here's

00:23:49.460 --> 00:23:51.220
step two, here's step three. Like you're not

00:23:51.220 --> 00:23:53.539
going to step three and then step one and then

00:23:53.539 --> 00:23:56.420
four. You're giving me an ordered list. That's

00:23:56.420 --> 00:23:58.200
the other piece. That's clear and concise and

00:23:58.200 --> 00:24:01.440
understandable. Yeah. One thing that you'll hear

00:24:01.440 --> 00:24:03.750
people say, oh, we got to fix shit. Oh, we've

00:24:03.750 --> 00:24:05.750
got some things to look at before we do that.

00:24:05.809 --> 00:24:08.170
What things? What are you talking about? So there's

00:24:08.170 --> 00:24:11.049
just this opaqueness to it that I don't understand

00:24:11.049 --> 00:24:15.109
what you're saying. Yeah. So you touched on the

00:24:15.109 --> 00:24:16.670
second part of it. We talked about word choice

00:24:16.670 --> 00:24:20.930
and using direct, clear, tangible, concrete language.

00:24:21.089 --> 00:24:23.910
The other part is the structure, the sequence.

00:24:24.470 --> 00:24:26.769
One way to look at this is like a well -written

00:24:26.769 --> 00:24:31.309
recipe. Step one, preheat oven to 450. Step two,

00:24:31.470 --> 00:24:35.119
mix flour and... milk and eggs with a blender

00:24:35.119 --> 00:24:38.299
on low setting. Walk me through it in a sequence

00:24:38.299 --> 00:24:40.940
that makes sense. Because if you're bouncing

00:24:40.940 --> 00:24:43.519
all over the place, you're like, okay, so you're

00:24:43.519 --> 00:24:45.859
baking the cake and then, oh yeah, but the eggs,

00:24:45.920 --> 00:24:47.480
don't forget about the eggs. Okay, when did I

00:24:47.480 --> 00:24:49.059
need to know about the eggs? I literally had

00:24:49.059 --> 00:24:50.720
this happen to me. I had someone who was telling

00:24:50.720 --> 00:24:53.660
me the best dessert you'll ever have. It's pistachio

00:24:53.660 --> 00:24:56.420
pudding mix, graham crackers, and then whipped

00:24:56.420 --> 00:24:58.240
cream. And you just mix them together and you

00:24:58.240 --> 00:24:59.660
put them on top of the graham crackers. And I

00:24:59.660 --> 00:25:01.400
was like, oh, okay, great. And I went home and

00:25:01.400 --> 00:25:03.519
I made it. And I came back and I was like, hey,

00:25:03.579 --> 00:25:06.880
Trev, the recipe that you gave me, it was okay,

00:25:06.980 --> 00:25:09.220
but it was kind of grainy. And he said, what

00:25:09.220 --> 00:25:11.039
do you mean? And I said, well, when I mixed the

00:25:11.039 --> 00:25:13.220
whipped cream and the powder together, it was

00:25:13.220 --> 00:25:15.519
kind of grainy. And he started laughing. He said,

00:25:15.599 --> 00:25:18.500
that's awesome. I said, what's awesome? And he's

00:25:18.500 --> 00:25:20.799
like, you didn't make the pudding? You said to

00:25:20.799 --> 00:25:23.019
mix the ingredients. So I did. And he just kept

00:25:23.019 --> 00:25:27.990
going, that's awesome. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. He

00:25:27.990 --> 00:25:29.970
didn't specify. He did not specify. You have

00:25:29.970 --> 00:25:31.069
to actually make the pudding. You have to make

00:25:31.069 --> 00:25:33.349
the pudding first and then you mix the pudding

00:25:33.349 --> 00:25:36.690
with the whipped cream. Great example. So structure

00:25:36.690 --> 00:25:41.730
the communication in a linear way that is clear

00:25:41.730 --> 00:25:44.329
and that is easy for the other person to follow.

00:25:44.470 --> 00:25:46.630
And this is another trap people fall into. If

00:25:46.630 --> 00:25:48.710
you know a topic really well, you can kind of

00:25:48.710 --> 00:25:50.730
bounce around. And if you've got it all in your

00:25:50.730 --> 00:25:53.910
head. you know where to put all the pieces. But

00:25:53.910 --> 00:25:55.809
the other person, if it's new to them, you can

00:25:55.809 --> 00:25:58.269
lose them so easily. So take a minute, pause

00:25:58.269 --> 00:26:01.390
and think things through in a sequence that allows

00:26:01.390 --> 00:26:04.750
them to follow it. And another tip I give people

00:26:04.750 --> 00:26:08.029
is it can be useful to speak more like the way

00:26:08.029 --> 00:26:10.269
you write in a certain sense. If you're writing

00:26:10.269 --> 00:26:12.730
a numbered list, you're going to number them.

00:26:12.970 --> 00:26:15.309
One, two, three. And you can do that verbally

00:26:15.309 --> 00:26:17.250
too. You can say, you know what? There are three

00:26:17.250 --> 00:26:20.109
key points here. One, bang, bang, bang. Two.

00:26:20.730 --> 00:26:23.490
And then three, and just by using the numbers,

00:26:23.730 --> 00:26:26.589
you're helping the person mentally organize it.

00:26:26.849 --> 00:26:28.710
So little tips like that. One, make the pudding.

00:26:28.890 --> 00:26:31.730
Two, mix it with the whipped cream. Three, put

00:26:31.730 --> 00:26:34.470
it on top of the graham crackers. Not mix the

00:26:34.470 --> 00:26:35.930
pudding and whipped cream. Mix it all together

00:26:35.930 --> 00:26:39.849
and you're good to go. Exactly. So this one is

00:26:39.849 --> 00:26:43.769
the one that probably takes the most thought

00:26:43.769 --> 00:26:45.750
in advance. If we're talking about the quantity

00:26:45.750 --> 00:26:47.849
of information, it should be easy enough to determine

00:26:47.849 --> 00:26:50.109
how much a person needs to know. Give them what

00:26:50.109 --> 00:26:53.329
they need, but no more. Quality also, is it true?

00:26:53.710 --> 00:26:56.029
How do you know? How confident are you and why?

00:26:56.230 --> 00:26:59.829
These are easy check -ins. Relevance should be

00:26:59.829 --> 00:27:02.410
fairly easy to determine. This one's more of

00:27:02.410 --> 00:27:04.309
a style thing, and it's about structuring your

00:27:04.309 --> 00:27:07.289
thinking before you speak. So you want your mind

00:27:07.289 --> 00:27:09.630
to be a couple steps ahead of your mouth. Yeah,

00:27:09.630 --> 00:27:10.869
this is going to be the one that's going to be

00:27:10.869 --> 00:27:13.910
the loosest and take the most work to tighten

00:27:13.910 --> 00:27:16.230
up, if this is the one that you violate. Some

00:27:16.230 --> 00:27:17.869
people are going to be better at some of these

00:27:17.869 --> 00:27:19.859
than others. But if this is the one that you

00:27:19.859 --> 00:27:21.819
need to tighten up, this one might take the most

00:27:21.819 --> 00:27:25.059
work to really hone it in. But I think that what

00:27:25.059 --> 00:27:26.980
you said is great. Speak how you would write.

00:27:27.680 --> 00:27:30.839
Yeah, or at least borrow the structure you might

00:27:30.839 --> 00:27:34.299
use in a written communication and don't be afraid

00:27:34.299 --> 00:27:37.140
to incorporate some of that into your spoken

00:27:37.140 --> 00:27:39.680
word. What I like about that too is like then

00:27:39.680 --> 00:27:41.740
my mouth can't move faster than my brain because

00:27:41.740 --> 00:27:43.940
I have to think, okay, how would I write this?

00:27:44.180 --> 00:27:48.829
Exactly. So quantity, quality, relevance. And

00:27:48.829 --> 00:27:51.789
then manner, which is this bit about the word

00:27:51.789 --> 00:27:55.450
choice in the sequence. So here's where it gets

00:27:55.450 --> 00:27:58.950
interesting. Yeah. Intentional flouting. Right.

00:27:59.049 --> 00:28:00.710
So we gave some examples of what happens when

00:28:00.710 --> 00:28:02.609
you break some of these rules and why it becomes

00:28:02.609 --> 00:28:04.710
less cooperative or less clear. Yeah. So that's

00:28:04.710 --> 00:28:06.549
when we're breaking the rules in an unintentional

00:28:06.549 --> 00:28:08.730
way. But you can also break these rules and be

00:28:08.730 --> 00:28:10.849
intentional about it. And where people's minds

00:28:10.849 --> 00:28:13.160
might go when they hear that is deception. Right.

00:28:13.200 --> 00:28:14.740
I'm going to deliberately lie to you or I'm going

00:28:14.740 --> 00:28:17.000
to deliberately give you less information than

00:28:17.000 --> 00:28:19.680
you need in order to mislead you. Right. So that's

00:28:19.680 --> 00:28:22.579
different than what Grace called flouting. I'm

00:28:22.579 --> 00:28:25.220
doing it in a way where there's a strong implication

00:28:25.220 --> 00:28:29.039
and you pick up on it. Exactly. So you're breaking

00:28:29.039 --> 00:28:32.460
a rule in a way that's obvious to both the speaker

00:28:32.460 --> 00:28:34.779
and the listener. Yeah. And the fact that you're

00:28:34.779 --> 00:28:37.299
breaking the rule in itself communicates something.

00:28:37.740 --> 00:28:39.819
And it's still cooperative because we're both

00:28:39.819 --> 00:28:42.220
in on it. Like sarcasm is a good example. If

00:28:42.220 --> 00:28:44.079
you stub your toe and I say smooth move. Right.

00:28:44.380 --> 00:28:47.119
It's funny. And you know that I'm not being serious.

00:28:47.180 --> 00:28:49.380
Yeah. Yeah. You're not complimenting my smooth

00:28:49.380 --> 00:28:52.960
moves. Right. It violates the maxim of quality

00:28:52.960 --> 00:28:54.839
because it's not true that that was smooth of

00:28:54.839 --> 00:28:56.819
you. Exactly. It was clumsy, but it was obviously

00:28:56.819 --> 00:28:58.420
not true. And you know it and I know it. And

00:28:58.420 --> 00:29:00.220
the actual meaning of that communication has

00:29:00.220 --> 00:29:02.000
nothing to do with whether or not that was a

00:29:02.000 --> 00:29:05.200
smooth move. The meaning of it is it's comic

00:29:05.200 --> 00:29:06.819
relief. Yeah. I'm saying something funny. I'm

00:29:06.819 --> 00:29:08.799
teasing you a little bit. And we're both on the

00:29:08.799 --> 00:29:12.900
same page about it. Yeah. ways that we can flout

00:29:12.900 --> 00:29:16.779
these rules that everybody gets. Or flouting

00:29:16.779 --> 00:29:19.519
quantity. So I'm not giving you quite enough

00:29:19.519 --> 00:29:22.480
information, but in a way where, so I'm saying

00:29:22.480 --> 00:29:24.539
something by omission. Yeah, there's a good example

00:29:24.539 --> 00:29:27.759
of this one. So it's a student applying to work

00:29:27.759 --> 00:29:31.059
with a particular professor for grad school and

00:29:31.059 --> 00:29:34.940
uses an undergrad prof as a reference. Yeah.

00:29:35.400 --> 00:29:37.740
And so, okay, the grad school prof reaches out

00:29:37.740 --> 00:29:40.099
to the reference professor and says, what can

00:29:40.099 --> 00:29:42.640
you tell me about this student? And the professor

00:29:42.640 --> 00:29:46.200
says, I can say that he attended all lectures.

00:29:46.420 --> 00:29:49.200
Right. That's it? That's all he said. So it clearly

00:29:49.200 --> 00:29:52.180
violates the maxim of quantity and even relevance,

00:29:52.339 --> 00:29:54.359
because that's not what I was asking. But there's

00:29:54.359 --> 00:29:56.819
a lot of subtext in there. It tells me everything

00:29:56.819 --> 00:30:00.299
I need to know. So by deliberately, significantly

00:30:00.299 --> 00:30:04.599
undershooting the quantity principle, what I'm

00:30:04.599 --> 00:30:06.900
saying without saying it is, I do not recommend

00:30:06.900 --> 00:30:09.380
this person. Yeah. That's a good example. It's

00:30:09.380 --> 00:30:11.119
a clear violation, but we're on the same page

00:30:11.119 --> 00:30:13.009
about it. I don't want to say anything bad about

00:30:13.009 --> 00:30:14.470
them, so I won't say anything at all. Right,

00:30:14.509 --> 00:30:18.390
exactly. What about the quality? Sarcasm is a

00:30:18.390 --> 00:30:20.210
great example of this one. Yeah, well, like you

00:30:20.210 --> 00:30:21.809
said, smooth move, right? So that's a good one

00:30:21.809 --> 00:30:24.650
for quality. Clearly not true, but the message

00:30:24.650 --> 00:30:28.230
is clear. So we've done quantity. We've talked

00:30:28.230 --> 00:30:30.769
about quality. What about relation? So relation

00:30:30.769 --> 00:30:34.089
would be you shift the topic. A great one here,

00:30:34.170 --> 00:30:37.210
I think, is when things get tense, if you're

00:30:37.210 --> 00:30:39.130
in a boardroom or if you're just with some friends

00:30:39.130 --> 00:30:41.079
and... Things start getting tense and tension

00:30:41.079 --> 00:30:42.880
starts ratcheting up. And then someone says,

00:30:43.079 --> 00:30:46.019
yeah, that rain was something yesterday. Right.

00:30:46.180 --> 00:30:48.099
Oh, so how about those blue jays? How about those

00:30:48.099 --> 00:30:50.900
blue jays? Yeah. Yeah. The leaves really blew

00:30:50.900 --> 00:30:53.160
it this year. Yeah. They're trying to ratchet

00:30:53.160 --> 00:30:56.779
down the tension. Clearly not in relation to

00:30:56.779 --> 00:30:59.500
the conversation that's going on at all. Not

00:30:59.500 --> 00:31:02.500
relevant. But it tells us a lot. Things are getting

00:31:02.500 --> 00:31:05.440
tense. We need to calm down. We need to sidestep

00:31:05.440 --> 00:31:06.920
the conversation. We need to take a couple of

00:31:06.920 --> 00:31:09.150
minutes to just chill out. Right. That's a good

00:31:09.150 --> 00:31:12.309
example. It's changing the subject, which violates

00:31:12.309 --> 00:31:14.430
the relevance principle, but in a very deliberate

00:31:14.430 --> 00:31:17.089
way with a clear intention that everybody recognizes.

00:31:17.289 --> 00:31:19.349
And then finally, we've got manner. So again,

00:31:19.430 --> 00:31:21.230
when we're flouting, we're intentionally breaking

00:31:21.230 --> 00:31:23.970
rules, but there's a wink and a nod there, right?

00:31:24.329 --> 00:31:26.569
We talked about manner or the way in which we

00:31:26.569 --> 00:31:28.730
speak. We want to be clear in the way in which

00:31:28.730 --> 00:31:31.809
we speak. So if I am unclear intentionally, I

00:31:31.809 --> 00:31:35.670
am telling you something. Let's just say it was

00:31:35.670 --> 00:31:40.170
not an incredible date. Right. Yeah. It was not

00:31:40.170 --> 00:31:42.750
awesome. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It wasn't awesome.

00:31:42.950 --> 00:31:45.690
Okay. So not awesome could mean any number of

00:31:45.690 --> 00:31:48.309
things. Definitely vague and ambiguous, but maybe

00:31:48.309 --> 00:31:50.589
everything I need to know. So there's ways we

00:31:50.589 --> 00:31:53.349
play games breaking these rules, but everyone's

00:31:53.349 --> 00:31:54.849
kind of in on it and that communicates a lot

00:31:54.849 --> 00:31:58.730
as well. Yeah. So that's what Grace called flouting.

00:31:59.309 --> 00:32:01.349
Now, the key here, of course, is that everyone

00:32:01.349 --> 00:32:06.109
involved shares a context and it's done in good

00:32:06.109 --> 00:32:08.339
faith. Right. Right. And it can be done for humor.

00:32:08.440 --> 00:32:10.839
It can be done for diplomacy. It can be done

00:32:10.839 --> 00:32:13.759
to signal that there's more beneath the surface,

00:32:13.960 --> 00:32:15.960
but that I'm not at liberty to disclose right

00:32:15.960 --> 00:32:18.559
now. There's lots of things that are clear communications

00:32:18.559 --> 00:32:21.359
that we deliver by breaking these rules in obvious

00:32:21.359 --> 00:32:24.240
ways. So those are cooperative violations. They're

00:32:24.240 --> 00:32:26.619
called flouting. Yeah. So what about uncooperative

00:32:26.619 --> 00:32:28.819
violations? What would that look like? Well,

00:32:28.839 --> 00:32:30.859
and here's where we get into what I would call

00:32:30.859 --> 00:32:33.480
bad faith communication practices. Yeah. So deception

00:32:33.480 --> 00:32:36.779
would be an example of that. And let's just go

00:32:36.779 --> 00:32:38.559
through them one at a time. So we've got, let's

00:32:38.559 --> 00:32:41.500
start with quantity. The quantity one, it's like,

00:32:41.619 --> 00:32:44.019
well, you can combine quantity and quality in

00:32:44.019 --> 00:32:45.980
the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.

00:32:46.019 --> 00:32:49.480
Right. Is an expression of some of this. You

00:32:49.480 --> 00:32:52.359
can mislead people by being selective about what

00:32:52.359 --> 00:32:55.079
facts you present. And people do this all the

00:32:55.079 --> 00:32:57.700
time in the media. You can take certain facts

00:32:57.700 --> 00:33:01.160
out of context. Yeah. And just cherry pick them

00:33:01.160 --> 00:33:03.740
and present them in a way that leads people to

00:33:03.740 --> 00:33:06.740
draw a certain conclusion that's false, even

00:33:06.740 --> 00:33:09.619
though you haven't made any false statements.

00:33:10.099 --> 00:33:12.839
So you can string together selectively chosen

00:33:12.839 --> 00:33:15.759
true statements that deliberately leads someone

00:33:15.759 --> 00:33:17.819
to draw a false inference, even though you haven't

00:33:17.819 --> 00:33:20.900
lied. Reality television is really bad for this,

00:33:20.900 --> 00:33:22.539
right? Yes. I mean, the media in general is bad

00:33:22.539 --> 00:33:24.990
for this, but like. They'll do a talking head

00:33:24.990 --> 00:33:27.250
interview with somebody and they'll put them

00:33:27.250 --> 00:33:28.849
on the screen and they'll be saying something.

00:33:28.950 --> 00:33:33.009
And then they'll cut away to some B -roll stock

00:33:33.009 --> 00:33:35.390
footage of something else that's happening. And

00:33:35.390 --> 00:33:37.730
they'll take a part of the interview and they'll

00:33:37.730 --> 00:33:40.690
splice it in. And it sounds like a full sentence,

00:33:40.829 --> 00:33:42.990
but they're actually just cherry picking words

00:33:42.990 --> 00:33:45.509
to try and construct whatever narrative that

00:33:45.509 --> 00:33:47.809
they want to construct. The editors tell a story,

00:33:47.890 --> 00:33:50.230
whether it's accurate or not. So you can play

00:33:50.230 --> 00:33:52.680
with quantity of information. Taking something

00:33:52.680 --> 00:33:55.059
out of context is playing with the quantity of

00:33:55.059 --> 00:33:57.720
information. You've given them one little snippet,

00:33:57.720 --> 00:34:00.339
but without sufficient background. The Simpsons

00:34:00.339 --> 00:34:01.859
did a great job of one of the, I don't know if

00:34:01.859 --> 00:34:04.779
you remember that episode where Homer had a babysitter

00:34:04.779 --> 00:34:07.980
and there was a, he had a Venus de Milo made

00:34:07.980 --> 00:34:10.300
out of like, it was a gummy Venus de Milo. And

00:34:10.300 --> 00:34:13.159
it got stuck to the backside of her pants because

00:34:13.159 --> 00:34:14.719
he lost it in the car and he went and he grabbed

00:34:14.719 --> 00:34:16.780
it. And he was like, oh, I was just trying to

00:34:16.780 --> 00:34:18.820
grab that sweet, sweet candy. And they cut it

00:34:18.820 --> 00:34:20.139
up and she said, I was just trying to grab the

00:34:20.139 --> 00:34:24.719
sweet, sweet can. Right. So. Right. Yeah. So

00:34:24.719 --> 00:34:28.599
quality of information, yeah, is like just lying,

00:34:28.719 --> 00:34:33.260
deliberately lying or saying something with a

00:34:33.260 --> 00:34:36.159
sense of certainty that's not justified. So we

00:34:36.159 --> 00:34:37.860
talked about that as an unintentional, right?

00:34:38.039 --> 00:34:40.320
Right. If you were to say, oh yeah, I'm pretty

00:34:40.320 --> 00:34:42.820
sure we hit the numbers. But then if you were

00:34:42.820 --> 00:34:45.659
to actively deceive me. Just lying. Just saying

00:34:45.659 --> 00:34:47.900
things that you know to be false. For sure. I

00:34:47.900 --> 00:34:49.139
don't think we need to give examples of that.

00:34:49.199 --> 00:34:50.300
Hopefully you know what lying means. Hopefully

00:34:50.300 --> 00:34:51.699
that one's clear. I don't want to unpack that.

00:34:51.820 --> 00:34:54.699
Totally. The relevance one, this is where you

00:34:54.699 --> 00:34:56.440
get into things like stonewalling, changing the

00:34:56.440 --> 00:34:59.780
subject, whataboutism, non -answers, diverting

00:34:59.780 --> 00:35:02.460
back to your talking points. These ones are sneaky

00:35:02.460 --> 00:35:05.639
and slippery. They're not as obvious as you just

00:35:05.639 --> 00:35:07.900
lied to me. It's you just pivoted in a weird

00:35:07.900 --> 00:35:10.079
way. Yeah. And now the conversation's about something

00:35:10.079 --> 00:35:12.780
else. This isn't what I want to be talking about.

00:35:12.800 --> 00:35:14.800
We already hit on this when politicians answer

00:35:14.800 --> 00:35:16.599
the question that they want to have been asked

00:35:16.599 --> 00:35:18.639
instead of the question that they were actually

00:35:18.639 --> 00:35:22.320
asked. They've got a stock answer. Yeah. So the

00:35:22.320 --> 00:35:25.639
relevance one is one of the most common ways

00:35:25.639 --> 00:35:28.380
of being uncooperative, I think. And then manner

00:35:28.380 --> 00:35:31.300
or the way in which we talk. So I did not have

00:35:31.300 --> 00:35:33.840
sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.

00:35:34.420 --> 00:35:37.800
Right. Deliberately using an uncommon phrase

00:35:37.800 --> 00:35:40.940
like sexual relations. Yeah. Which if you look

00:35:40.940 --> 00:35:44.440
up in a dictionary, meant intercourse. Okay,

00:35:44.480 --> 00:35:48.460
so technically true, but also very misleading

00:35:48.460 --> 00:35:51.059
in light of the facts that came out later. That's

00:35:51.059 --> 00:35:54.719
a good example of deliberately wordsmithing.

00:35:54.719 --> 00:35:57.940
Yes. And trying to get away with it on a technicality.

00:35:58.000 --> 00:36:01.340
Yeah. Technically true. I didn't inhale. I didn't

00:36:01.340 --> 00:36:04.960
inhale. Right. Being vague on purpose in order

00:36:04.960 --> 00:36:08.619
to, your intention is to deceive. And that's

00:36:08.619 --> 00:36:10.699
what matters here. It's uncooperative. If anyone's

00:36:10.699 --> 00:36:12.719
wondering, we're talking about Bill Clinton.

00:36:12.860 --> 00:36:16.679
So if you weren't around in 1995. Right, yeah.

00:36:17.099 --> 00:36:18.739
They asked him if he'd ever smoked marijuana

00:36:18.739 --> 00:36:21.199
back when that was scandalous for him to have

00:36:21.199 --> 00:36:22.920
said yes. And he's like, yes, I did in college,

00:36:22.940 --> 00:36:25.460
but I didn't inhale. I like Barack Obama's answer.

00:36:25.679 --> 00:36:28.099
I did inhale. Well, he said, of course I inhaled.

00:36:28.119 --> 00:36:30.840
That's the whole point. Yeah. A violation of

00:36:30.840 --> 00:36:34.579
manner would be using weird jargon or answering

00:36:34.579 --> 00:36:37.019
a part of the question, but not the whole question.

00:36:37.630 --> 00:36:39.789
You can tell when someone's using evasive language

00:36:39.789 --> 00:36:43.429
where they're trying to make sure that what they

00:36:43.429 --> 00:36:46.110
say is technically true while also deliberately

00:36:46.110 --> 00:36:48.210
deceiving you. Yeah. So if someone's a manager,

00:36:48.289 --> 00:36:50.869
right? I sent Jim the email. Like, okay, you

00:36:50.869 --> 00:36:52.530
might have sent Jim the email. Did you follow

00:36:52.530 --> 00:36:54.530
up with him? He's on your team. You're supposed

00:36:54.530 --> 00:36:56.809
to be managing your team. Well, I sent him the

00:36:56.809 --> 00:36:59.750
email. I can't tell you what he did afterwards.

00:36:59.829 --> 00:37:01.909
Why can't you tell me you're the manager? Right.

00:37:01.949 --> 00:37:03.510
Or I sent it to him five minutes before this

00:37:03.510 --> 00:37:06.690
meeting. Right. Two months after he needed it.

00:37:06.730 --> 00:37:08.090
Yeah. But I did send him the email. But I did

00:37:08.090 --> 00:37:10.349
send it. Yeah. So we're obscuring some information

00:37:10.349 --> 00:37:12.449
there. Right. That one, one could argue is a

00:37:12.449 --> 00:37:15.389
quantity violation as well. It's a partial truth.

00:37:15.730 --> 00:37:19.289
Yeah. So we will probably do another episode

00:37:19.289 --> 00:37:22.550
on deception because it's a fascinating topic

00:37:22.550 --> 00:37:26.590
to unpack the mechanics of all the ways we deceive

00:37:26.590 --> 00:37:28.130
each other. Yeah. Especially when you put it

00:37:28.130 --> 00:37:30.389
in this context, like this is a really fun. It's

00:37:30.389 --> 00:37:32.489
a tight framework to just kind of play with and

00:37:32.489 --> 00:37:36.150
talk through. Yeah. So. Bottom line with these

00:37:36.150 --> 00:37:39.110
uncooperative violations, trust breaks down because

00:37:39.110 --> 00:37:41.650
if you're not cooperating with somebody, that's

00:37:41.650 --> 00:37:43.849
the frustrating feeling we get when a conversation

00:37:43.849 --> 00:37:45.650
starts to go sideways. It's like this doesn't

00:37:45.650 --> 00:37:47.590
feel cooperative or helpful. Sometimes it's an

00:37:47.590 --> 00:37:49.530
honest mistake. It's just you haven't thought

00:37:49.530 --> 00:37:52.210
through how to present your part of the communication

00:37:52.210 --> 00:37:54.130
in a way that's most helpful. Well, maybe you

00:37:54.130 --> 00:37:55.929
broke one of these maxims and you didn't even

00:37:55.929 --> 00:37:58.090
realize it, right? Sure. Maybe you weren't clear.

00:37:58.150 --> 00:37:59.809
And so someone's answering a question that they

00:37:59.809 --> 00:38:02.789
thought you asked, but that wasn't the information

00:38:02.789 --> 00:38:05.000
you were looking for because. you didn't give

00:38:05.000 --> 00:38:07.300
enough of a quality question in the first place.

00:38:07.400 --> 00:38:08.699
Well, that's an interesting point because so

00:38:08.699 --> 00:38:10.820
far we've talked about this from the perspective

00:38:10.820 --> 00:38:13.519
of the person, let's say, answering a question

00:38:13.519 --> 00:38:15.880
or providing good information. You could equally

00:38:15.880 --> 00:38:18.360
apply these on the asking side, like make sure

00:38:18.360 --> 00:38:20.599
you ask high quality questions. And I think that

00:38:20.599 --> 00:38:22.599
honestly, that's where there's going to be more

00:38:22.599 --> 00:38:24.860
skin in the game anyway. Like if you can make

00:38:24.860 --> 00:38:28.460
sure that you are meeting these four maxims when

00:38:28.460 --> 00:38:31.500
you're communicating with a person. it will make

00:38:31.500 --> 00:38:33.539
for less breakdown. I feel like that's a beautiful

00:38:33.539 --> 00:38:35.920
way to sort of summarize this whole thing. We

00:38:35.920 --> 00:38:37.639
want to be on the same page as a person. How

00:38:37.639 --> 00:38:41.000
do we do that? With quantity, quality, relation,

00:38:41.099 --> 00:38:44.960
and manner. Yeah. And remember that to look at

00:38:44.960 --> 00:38:46.519
the communication as a cooperative endeavor,

00:38:46.659 --> 00:38:49.699
we're cooperating to try to achieve some common

00:38:49.699 --> 00:38:53.679
goal. And it can be useful to state what that

00:38:53.679 --> 00:38:57.219
is upfront. So set the tone, set the context.

00:38:57.320 --> 00:38:59.340
Here's where I want to... get out of this conversation.

00:38:59.840 --> 00:39:02.380
Here's the goal. Now you know what cooperative

00:39:02.380 --> 00:39:06.039
is and you can tailor everything you say to make

00:39:06.039 --> 00:39:07.800
sure it's in service of that goal. And you can

00:39:07.800 --> 00:39:09.480
use that as a guiding principle too. If things

00:39:09.480 --> 00:39:12.039
start to become adversarial, okay, where do I

00:39:12.039 --> 00:39:13.820
go sideways, right? What am I not hitting here

00:39:13.820 --> 00:39:17.500
in terms of these four maxims? So lessons here,

00:39:17.699 --> 00:39:21.360
keep these in mind, keep it cooperative. If you're

00:39:21.360 --> 00:39:24.099
in a leadership role, another example that just

00:39:24.099 --> 00:39:26.619
occurred to me, people often get frustrated.

00:39:27.179 --> 00:39:29.420
When they get like you're at a town hall and

00:39:29.420 --> 00:39:31.940
senior leadership is speaking and what comes

00:39:31.940 --> 00:39:35.579
out sounds like super sanitized corporate speak.

00:39:35.800 --> 00:39:39.139
Yeah. Or nowadays chat GPT wrote it for you.

00:39:39.199 --> 00:39:41.519
That's another one. People just want to be leveled

00:39:41.519 --> 00:39:45.079
with. Yeah. And if it sounds too formal or too

00:39:45.079 --> 00:39:48.300
polished, it's like, ah, you're handling me.

00:39:48.380 --> 00:39:49.960
I feel like you're handling me. I want you to

00:39:49.960 --> 00:39:51.360
talk to me. Yeah. I think that's a good one for

00:39:51.360 --> 00:39:53.659
manner as well. Right. If you run every email

00:39:53.659 --> 00:39:56.000
that you send through chat GPT and you send it

00:39:56.000 --> 00:39:58.989
out, like. The way AI writes right now, it's

00:39:58.989 --> 00:40:01.869
very easy to tell if you're familiar with it

00:40:01.869 --> 00:40:06.829
at all. It has sort of a generic style. If suddenly

00:40:06.829 --> 00:40:09.829
your communications are in a different voice

00:40:09.829 --> 00:40:12.849
from what someone's used to from you, it's like,

00:40:12.849 --> 00:40:15.070
did you write this? That's not to say that AI

00:40:15.070 --> 00:40:17.510
can't be useful in helping you clarify your thoughts.

00:40:17.590 --> 00:40:19.989
It can be super useful. But I think people are

00:40:19.989 --> 00:40:21.829
developing an intuition for that sort of thing.

00:40:21.909 --> 00:40:24.590
So you want to keep it real. Speak as yourself.

00:40:25.099 --> 00:40:27.000
To the extent you can. And if you're in a leadership

00:40:27.000 --> 00:40:28.900
position, level with people and speak to them

00:40:28.900 --> 00:40:31.699
in plain English. Yeah. Avoid the overly polished

00:40:31.699 --> 00:40:34.719
HR corporate speak. Yeah. Scrubbing everything.

00:40:34.860 --> 00:40:37.519
Yeah. Yeah. And like, oh, we're going to be right

00:40:37.519 --> 00:40:39.400
sizing and we're going through a reorg and like,

00:40:39.440 --> 00:40:41.699
just say, you know what? Layoffs are coming and

00:40:41.699 --> 00:40:43.880
we know it sucks. Just say what you mean. Well,

00:40:43.900 --> 00:40:45.360
especially in that sort of a situation where

00:40:45.360 --> 00:40:47.960
you're already delivering bad news. So people

00:40:47.960 --> 00:40:50.460
are going to be upset with you. But if you give

00:40:50.460 --> 00:40:52.559
them more ammunition to be not only upset with

00:40:52.559 --> 00:40:54.320
the message, but also the medium. The way you

00:40:54.320 --> 00:40:56.199
delivered it. Yeah. Just be genuine. If you're

00:40:56.199 --> 00:40:57.719
going to punch me in the face, don't pretend

00:40:57.719 --> 00:41:01.000
you're just adjusting my eyeliner or something,

00:41:01.099 --> 00:41:02.760
right? You just hit me. Oh, I slipped. Sorry.

00:41:03.559 --> 00:41:06.059
Mosquito, right? If there's a mosquito, fine.

00:41:06.280 --> 00:41:07.579
But if there isn't and you want to hit me, just

00:41:07.579 --> 00:41:09.300
hit me. I tripped, fell, and caught myself on

00:41:09.300 --> 00:41:13.820
your face. Yeah, exactly. So those are the four

00:41:13.820 --> 00:41:18.099
maxims. Quantity, quality, relevance, and manner.

00:41:18.960 --> 00:41:21.659
A couple of challenges. Keep these in mind or

00:41:21.659 --> 00:41:24.659
pick one and keep it top of mind this week and

00:41:24.659 --> 00:41:26.480
intentionally apply it in your communication.

00:41:26.780 --> 00:41:29.019
Maybe it's being more direct, which would be

00:41:29.019 --> 00:41:32.500
manner. Maybe it's being more explicit about

00:41:32.500 --> 00:41:34.920
your level of confidence or uncertainty, which

00:41:34.920 --> 00:41:39.000
would be the quality one. Pick one and incorporate

00:41:39.000 --> 00:41:41.420
it into your communication this week and just

00:41:41.420 --> 00:41:44.559
practice it and also be on the lookout for it.

00:41:44.619 --> 00:41:47.480
Notice when someone applies it well and... how

00:41:47.480 --> 00:41:50.639
that lands and how effective it is, notice when

00:41:50.639 --> 00:41:53.599
maybe it's missing. Just to add to that, if you're

00:41:53.599 --> 00:41:56.840
in communication with someone regularly and it's

00:41:56.840 --> 00:41:58.579
someone that you want to share this with, send

00:41:58.579 --> 00:42:00.679
this video to them or this podcast to them. And

00:42:00.679 --> 00:42:02.239
then you can be on the same page. You've got

00:42:02.239 --> 00:42:05.500
some shared backgrounds in terms of what you're

00:42:05.500 --> 00:42:07.440
trying to do and you can coach one another on

00:42:07.440 --> 00:42:10.539
those four maxims and really get good at it.

00:42:10.800 --> 00:42:13.139
These are worth internalizing. And if they become

00:42:13.139 --> 00:42:15.579
instinctive over time, what you'll find is that

00:42:15.579 --> 00:42:19.559
your communication is more concise, more clear,

00:42:19.599 --> 00:42:22.800
and just more effective. Not just in terms of

00:42:22.800 --> 00:42:24.800
the information, but the quality of the interaction.

00:42:24.820 --> 00:42:27.340
Because when we follow these rules or when we

00:42:27.340 --> 00:42:29.760
flout them in obvious ways that are still cooperative,

00:42:30.139 --> 00:42:34.079
we're showing respect and we're being helpful.

00:42:34.280 --> 00:42:37.400
And that's what builds solid working relationships

00:42:37.400 --> 00:42:39.789
over time. All right. Thanks for being here with

00:42:39.789 --> 00:42:41.789
us. Thanks for going through Grice's Maxims.

00:42:41.829 --> 00:42:44.210
Hopefully you learned something. Like, subscribe.

00:42:44.409 --> 00:42:46.710
If you like this, forward to a friend. And if

00:42:46.710 --> 00:42:48.510
you'd like to work with either Chris or myself,

00:42:48.750 --> 00:42:51.170
you can find us on LinkedIn. As always, we hope

00:42:51.170 --> 00:42:52.590
this was useful. Thanks for tuning in.