One of the most interesting concepts introduced in this section of the chapter was the idea of “folk biology.” According to Pinker, creating a sense of community through a shared myth or ideology allows individuals who share no relation to communicate and interact communally. For example, the United States has a tradition of referring to the prominent members of the Revolution as the “founding fathers,” thereby lamenting the familial bond between American citizens.
Humans have a genetic predisposition to get along with each other—each other being our perceived in group—even at the our own disadvantage. For the longest time I incorrectly believed that humans were quite good at recognizing false smiles. As it turns out, human beings are terrible at spotting fake smiles. Our rather poor lie detectors are, in part, a result of the social cohesion that results from unrecognized deception. That is, communities unable to recognize a lie are less prone to infighting, and thus more likely to reproduce.
Another interesting idea introduced by Pinker is the concept of “mutual knowledge” and the idea that statements can be “out there.” If two individuals in a conversation are aware of a slight against themselves or the other party, and also aware that the other party is also aware, then the slight is perceived much more negatively than if it had been ambiguous. Acknowledged, or “out there” slights, can cause embarrassment, loss of power, and damage relationships.
The complicated mess that is human interaction and communication has two ends according to Pinker: to “convey our intentions, and maintain or renegotiate our ties with out fellows.” It is Pinker’s second purpose that fascinates me the most, because language is the result of thousands of years of evolution, and the idea that something so complicated could be the result of a few genetic variations is amazing. Every horrible sexual innuendo—be it etchings or coffee—is the result of the thing they are used to obtain.
Can you spot the fake smile?: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/surveys/smiles/
Firstly, the feminist revision of the diplomat joke on page 396 totally made my day. It's hilarious! When I read the diplomat joke it upset me, but the feminist revision was a good middle finger to the people who made that joke.
As far as the politeness theory goes...I think it is very interesting to try and see why we as language speakers do the things we do. But, to me, the reason we say things in a polite manner would be because we want to. If this is a nation wide thing, if almost all English speakers say things like "would you mind passing the salt" instead of "pass the salt" then we as English speakers decided we wanted to do that. It could be that it is within social norms that we say things such as that, but the social norm was created by someone or some group of English speakers. Speakers decided that they themselves, and probably the salt passers, were more comfortable being polite about passing the salt rather than commanding it. Although it is interesting to realize we ourselves are doing all these polite lingual norms we hadn't noticed before, we do these things because we choose to do them, because we are all more in our comfort zone that way. And humans loooove their comfort zone.
One of the most interesting concepts introduced in this section of the chapter was the idea of “folk biology.” According to Pinker, creating a sense of community through a shared myth or ideology allows individuals who share no relation to communicate and interact communally. For example, the United States has a tradition of referring to the prominent members of the Revolution as the “founding fathers,” thereby lamenting the familial bond between American citizens.
ReplyDeleteHumans have a genetic predisposition to get along with each other—each other being our perceived in group—even at the our own disadvantage. For the longest time I incorrectly believed that humans were quite good at recognizing false smiles. As it turns out, human beings are terrible at spotting fake smiles. Our rather poor lie detectors are, in part, a result of the social cohesion that results from unrecognized deception. That is, communities unable to recognize a lie are less prone to infighting, and thus more likely to reproduce.
Another interesting idea introduced by Pinker is the concept of “mutual knowledge” and the idea that statements can be “out there.” If two individuals in a conversation are aware of a slight against themselves or the other party, and also aware that the other party is also aware, then the slight is perceived much more negatively than if it had been ambiguous. Acknowledged, or “out there” slights, can cause embarrassment, loss of power, and damage relationships.
The complicated mess that is human interaction and communication has two ends according to Pinker: to “convey our intentions, and maintain or renegotiate our ties with out fellows.” It is Pinker’s second purpose that fascinates me the most, because language is the result of thousands of years of evolution, and the idea that something so complicated could be the result of a few genetic variations is amazing. Every horrible sexual innuendo—be it etchings or coffee—is the result of the thing they are used to obtain.
Can you spot the fake smile?: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/surveys/smiles/
Firstly, the feminist revision of the diplomat joke on page 396 totally made my day. It's hilarious! When I read the diplomat joke it upset me, but the feminist revision was a good middle finger to the people who made that joke.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the politeness theory goes...I think it is very interesting to try and see why we as language speakers do the things we do. But, to me, the reason we say things in a polite manner would be because we want to. If this is a nation wide thing, if almost all English speakers say things like "would you mind passing the salt" instead of "pass the salt" then we as English speakers decided we wanted to do that. It could be that it is within social norms that we say things such as that, but the social norm was created by someone or some group of English speakers. Speakers decided that they themselves, and probably the salt passers, were more comfortable being polite about passing the salt rather than commanding it. Although it is interesting to realize we ourselves are doing all these polite lingual norms we hadn't noticed before, we do these things because we choose to do them, because we are all more in our comfort zone that way. And humans loooove their comfort zone.
Tori Watson