What evidence is there that “using these 8 common phrases” will “ruin your credibility”?
Answer: Not much.
Why do we create and perpetuate #communication myths? Communication is important, and we don't see enough of how it works “in the wild.”
🧵Thread 1/12
The thread is informed by research in conversation analysis #EMCA
There are other research methods for investigating communication, but not all look at actual humans producing, for instance, those “8 common phrases” in social interaction.
That’s what this thread will do. 2/12
The thread gives examples of the “8 common phrases” being used.
As @DerekEdwards23 says, if data-free assertions (advice, theories, models) don’t account for actual interaction, there’s a problem.
Judge for yourself whether the phrases undermine speaker credibility. 3/12
Phrase 1: "To be honest"
It’s not about 'truth'.
As @DerekEdwards023 & @alefasulo show, it is often about handling “dispreferred” turns (i.e., they appear when we turn down invitations, disagree, criticize, etc.), or to assert sincerity and/or independence. 4/12
Phrase 2: "In my opinion"
The invented examples vary, and are stripped from context (i.e., other turns at talk before and after).
In my data, the phrase is used to claim independence from someone else’s point of view in situations involving a problem. 5/12
Phrase 3: "You may already know this, but"
There’s *lots* of research on how people handle their own and other people’s 'knowledge'.
We typically design our talk in a way that shows we're fitting it to what (we think) others already know (and don't always get it right). 6/12
Phrase 4: "I'm not sure"
This claim is daft.
The “I’m not sures” in the conversations attached should not be ‘eliminated’ (!) since they’re all doing specific things - from reassurance to showing care in mobilizing advice or help. 7/12
Phrase 5: "I could be wrong"
This is another simple generalization doing damage to (and being unlikely to account for) reality, and where removing the context (that is, all the other turns at talk leading up to and following this invented case) exacerbates the problem. 8/12
Phrase 6: "This is probably a stupid question"
The invented case doesn’t ring true.
The phrase is a preface; a disclaimer; very common. It does things like account for asking, or handle a situation where the other party hasn’t (but should) have made something clear, etc. 9/12
Phrase 7: "Just a thought"
Again, the example is odd, and too simplistic to generalize from.
In real data, Speaker A may say “just a thought” after Speaker B has resisted Speaker A’s offer, as a way of minimizing their stake in Speaker B accepting or rejecting it. 10/12
11. Phrase 8: "If you don't mind"
I’m not sure where ‘edgy’ comes from, but there’s some evidence for using the phrase to attend to the potentially delicate nature of a request, as in the examples attached. 11/12
In sum:
Invented (& ‘remembered’) decontextualized examples are not the same as actual interaction. This is a problem for communication guidance and assessment.
If a recommendation does not match the empirical reality of talk, it’s probably not a good recommendation. 🧵12/12.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
After last week's focus on the science of mechanical and natural #ventilation, today's @IndependentSage briefing focused on its translation into a non-technical #communication#messaging 'proof of concept' scheme.
3. NB. Ventilation is complex - as is making decisions about the behavioural mitigations needed following the assessment of any given space - so any such scheme must be underpinned by ventilation and aerosol expertise ...
Here’s a little case study of the ripple effect of UK government mixed messaging - universities and face coverings.
1. “Face coverings are no longer advised for students, staff and visitors either in teaching rooms or in communal areas” (DfE, 17.8.21)
“no longer advised” 🤨
2. Meanwhile, beyond campus, the government has
“removed the requirement to wear face coverings in law"
"but"
"expects and recommends that they are worn"
"in enclosed and crowded spaces where people may come into contact with people they don’t normally meet.”
3. Back to universities:
“There are no longer restrictions on the approach to teaching and learning in HE... There is no requirement for social distancing or other measures within in person teaching... [and there are no] restrictions to face-to-face provision.”
Our ‘Following the Science’ Timeline charts the main behavioural science recommendations from SAGE & Indie SAGE about the measures needed to minimize the spread of COVID-19 alongside what the Westminster Government implemented and when.
🧵+🔗⬇️
2. The timeline covers four main areas: hand and respiratory hygiene, face coverings, physical distancing, and self-isolation...
3. ...it also covers selected events, news, and dates as an aide memoire, and some dates about emerging science (e.g., the airborne nature of Covid) where it had implications for behaviours like wearing face coverings or opening windows.
Regarding @IanCookson72's point below, #EMCA research shows us that whatever appears in the 'answer' slot in a conversation can be assessed (in the moment and post-hoc) for how it addresses the initiating 'question'. News interviews are full of examples.
2. There is a great deal of conversation analytic and other research on media / news / political interviews – too much for a thread – including on the thousands of Newsnight interviews.
3. If you’re not familiar with conversation analysis, transcripts use the ‘Jefferson’ system which, like music notation, includes the precise pace, intonation, etc. of real talk as it is produced, including gaps between and pauses within turns timed to the nearest 0.1 second.
'Build rapport' is at the heart of #communication skills training and #CX
It's obviously good to have good conversations, but what does ‘building rapport’ look like ‘in the wild’ – and does it 'work'?
1. Thread. 🧵
2. What actually counts as rapport building – in terms of words and phrases and 'tone of voice' – is "amorphous” and “nebulous”, says G.B. Rubin (2016) in her thesis on crisis #negotiation
'Active listening' and related concepts sound good but they're also imprecise.
3. One common piece of advice (and instruction) to ‘build rapport’ is to ask, “how are you today?”
‘How are you’ have also been called “the three most useless words in the world of communication"🤔
Let’s have a look at some salespeople ‘building rapport’ in #B2B conversations.
Some questions are *standardized* (e.g., surveys, scripts, instructions) and require reading out loud, word for word.
In business, research, law, medicine, etc., do people "just read them out"?
TL;DR: No. And there are consequences.
1. 🧵
2. We might take it for granted that, when 'standardized', questions will be the same whether spoken or written. The examples in the thread will show they're not.
Without examining actual interaction, we won't know the clinical, diagnostic, legal, etc. consequences either way.
3. Let's start with @rolsi_journal's research on the significant consequences of the way diagnostic instruments about #QualityOfLife are delivered in talk, compared to how they're written on the page.