When I’m talking, I’m mainly just sharing my model of reality. When many others talk, it’s a “speech act”, aimed at “handling” the listener.
This would explain why some people recommend starting sentences with “I think...” etc. to reduce conflicts.
In a model-sharing mode that does not make much sense. Sentences “I think X” and “X” are equivalent. (The only exception would be if I discussed a model of myself, where “I think X” would mean “so this model of myself is thinking X at this moment of model-time”.)
But in the listener-handling mode, it could reduce the impact. It could mean “I am not asking you to change your opinion or suffer the social consequences now; I am just giving you my model as an information”.
If the listener-handling mode is the standard speech mode, the exceptions need a disclaimer. For most people this seem to be so, and the rest of us need to be aware of the fact that we don’t speak the same language.
This would explain why some people recommend starting sentences with “I think...” etc. to reduce conflicts. In a model-sharing mode that does not make much sense.
I think it can.
In a model-sharing mode that does not make much sense. Sentences “I think X” and “X” are equivalent.
You’re on to something with analyzing the meaning of statements in different modes.
You can speak in model sharing mode with self awareness of the mode. So when I’m thinking about sharing my model, I’m aware that it’s my model, and not yours.
So , “I think”, “you think” maintains the awareness of which model one is speaking of, and an awareness of the situation you are in—two people with different models.
Earlier, I concluded that “I disagree” was better than “You’re wrong” and “That’s wrong”. Maybe I’m seeing a principle emerge.
Discuss the topic in language that you could both agree on (that doesn’t automatically conflict with the person you’re talking to). We can both agree that “I disagree”, but not that “You’re wrong”. With conscious of abstraction, and consciousness of our differing abstractions, we can jointly model our disagreement in a shared and consistent language.
That helps to “handle” the situation in terms of properly framing it as a clash of models, in terms that we can both agree on, but that’s a joint “handling”, coming to a common ground for discussion.
Though that likely changes our emotional reactions, that seems to me different than a direct attempt to handle your emotional state. It’s primarily about coming up with an efficient language for our discussion.
I would guess that the general semantics crowd has analyzed discussions in similar terms but greater depth. What I’m saying here rings a lot of bells on readings from GS. Too bad I don’t have concrete citations.
This would explain why some people recommend starting sentences with “I think...” etc. to reduce conflicts.
In a model-sharing mode that does not make much sense. Sentences “I think X” and “X” are equivalent.
I think it does make sense, even in model-sharing mode. “I think” has a modal function; modal expressions communicate something about your degree of certainty in what you’re saying, and so does leaving them out. The general pattern is that flat statements without modal qualifiers are interpreted as being spoken with great/absolute confidence.
I also question the wisdom of dividing interpersonal communication into separate “listener-handling” and “model-sharing” modes. Sharing anything that might reasonably be expected to have an impact on other people’s models is only not “listener-handling” if we discount “potentially changing people’s models” as a way of “handling” them. Which doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense to me.
I constantly use I think etc. in model-sharing mode because certainty can be poisonous both to your own knowledge and that of who you’re talking to. In pure information conveying mode I think X and X are identical but it’s so rare that you can know BOTH of you are in that mode that it feels way more comfortable to hedge.
What temperature does water boil at? I’m pretty sure it’s 212f.
Why are people often disingenuous? I think it’s because our brains view conversation differently than our culture does.
Why am I giving examples? Because I think there is a continuum, not just two modes. If you can stay conscious of it, placing yourself wholeheartedly in one mode or the other can be very effective, but it’s easiest to maintain a middle ground.
This would explain why some people recommend starting sentences with “I think...” etc. to reduce conflicts.
In a model-sharing mode that does not make much sense. Sentences “I think X” and “X” are equivalent. (The only exception would be if I discussed a model of myself, where “I think X” would mean “so this model of myself is thinking X at this moment of model-time”.)
But in the listener-handling mode, it could reduce the impact. It could mean “I am not asking you to change your opinion or suffer the social consequences now; I am just giving you my model as an information”.
If the listener-handling mode is the standard speech mode, the exceptions need a disclaimer. For most people this seem to be so, and the rest of us need to be aware of the fact that we don’t speak the same language.
I think it can.
You’re on to something with analyzing the meaning of statements in different modes.
You can speak in model sharing mode with self awareness of the mode. So when I’m thinking about sharing my model, I’m aware that it’s my model, and not yours.
So , “I think”, “you think” maintains the awareness of which model one is speaking of, and an awareness of the situation you are in—two people with different models.
Earlier, I concluded that “I disagree” was better than “You’re wrong” and “That’s wrong”. Maybe I’m seeing a principle emerge.
Discuss the topic in language that you could both agree on (that doesn’t automatically conflict with the person you’re talking to). We can both agree that “I disagree”, but not that “You’re wrong”. With conscious of abstraction, and consciousness of our differing abstractions, we can jointly model our disagreement in a shared and consistent language.
That helps to “handle” the situation in terms of properly framing it as a clash of models, in terms that we can both agree on, but that’s a joint “handling”, coming to a common ground for discussion.
Though that likely changes our emotional reactions, that seems to me different than a direct attempt to handle your emotional state. It’s primarily about coming up with an efficient language for our discussion.
I would guess that the general semantics crowd has analyzed discussions in similar terms but greater depth. What I’m saying here rings a lot of bells on readings from GS. Too bad I don’t have concrete citations.
I think it does make sense, even in model-sharing mode. “I think” has a modal function; modal expressions communicate something about your degree of certainty in what you’re saying, and so does leaving them out. The general pattern is that flat statements without modal qualifiers are interpreted as being spoken with great/absolute confidence.
I also question the wisdom of dividing interpersonal communication into separate “listener-handling” and “model-sharing” modes. Sharing anything that might reasonably be expected to have an impact on other people’s models is only not “listener-handling” if we discount “potentially changing people’s models” as a way of “handling” them. Which doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense to me.
I constantly use I think etc. in model-sharing mode because certainty can be poisonous both to your own knowledge and that of who you’re talking to. In pure information conveying mode I think X and X are identical but it’s so rare that you can know BOTH of you are in that mode that it feels way more comfortable to hedge.
Examples: What’s bob’s phone number? It’s 555-1421!
Where is your car? it’s in the driveway
Where is bob? I THINK he’s at work.
What temperature does water boil at? I’m pretty sure it’s 212f.
Why are people often disingenuous? I think it’s because our brains view conversation differently than our culture does.
Why am I giving examples? Because I think there is a continuum, not just two modes. If you can stay conscious of it, placing yourself wholeheartedly in one mode or the other can be very effective, but it’s easiest to maintain a middle ground.