I don't really care about that...and you won't shut up

Grice claimed that there are certain maxims that guide conversations. He labeled the four he found as "maxims." For the purpose of this blog I wanted to focus in on two in particular: quality and quantity. Quantity is the amount that one person speaks to another. He claimed that a person in a healthy and worthwhile conversation should say no more and no less than is required to maintain the interest of the others and continue or end a conversation. Quality is the actual value of what is being said. He claimed that those in a conversation should say only things that add value to the conversation. What is being stated should be believed to be true by the speaker or the speaker should have evidence for what is being said.

As I was reading this particular section of the chapter I began to think about the differences commonly noted and studied in men and women. For the purpose of this blog I want to specify that when I use the term "men" or "women" I am not meaning to categorize all persons of a female sex or of a male sex. It would be too general to assume and/or make statements that claim the opinions and actions of all men are the same and the attitudes and actions of all women are the same. This is not true. It has just been found that certain qualities are more commonly found in men and other qualities are more commonly found in women.

I have similarly heard in one of my communication class discussions that women enjoy talking about the details of a story and build suspense up to a climax of a story while men would rather that the person they are conversing with simply presents the meat of the story or the main point. One can see how it would be frustrating or difficult for both parties to communicate on common ground. 

I relate this particular idea of gender differences in communication to Grice's ideas of what makes a worthwhile conversation. According to Grice saying too much (quantity) can ruin a conversation or take away from the essence of a good convo. For women, it seems that adding extra "fluff" is what makes a good conversation worthwhile. Men would disagree, perhaps, that all the "extras" are not needed. However for women these extras are important because they allow them to create/build social support systems by creating trust and kinship. For example, when two women are talking and one women is sharing a story about her daughter learning to walk; the other women is listening intently. The women who is listening is showing that she cares, while the women who is talking is able to share her excitement (trusting the other). 

Generally quantity and quality go hand in hand. It is often assumed that if one is speaking too much what they have to say may not be of much quality. Quality can be expressed in very little quantity of words, usually; or so many people assume so. It is my opinion, too, that for the most part quality and quantity are relational. I do, however, believe that sometimes conversations do not have very much substance may actually have value. Often women will converse over what seems very trivial matters. Perhaps, these conversations, though appear on the outside as meaningless or needless, assist in building strong social bonds and ties. After all, the more one talks to another, the more often one talks to another, the more ingrained that person becomes in the others life. They gain many details about the other person and are able to better understand and bond with each other. In some ways it is like a photo or a painting: the more details that are noticed or exposed in the photo the more comprehensive one can have of the picture when viewing the photo: even those details that seem trivial and minute. 

In closing, I would argue that quantity and quality are aspects of a conversation that are up for some individual interpretation. Everyone will have their own opinion on what is too much talking and what is substantial information for the conversation. Each conversation will be different and every person will change based on their experiences and attitudes. 

I found a clip below from a Friend's episode. It is kinda humorous but it shows the idea of what this blog is talking about. I wasn't able to embed it because it was disabled on you tube and for some reason it did not create a link but if you copy and paste it into a page it should work! Its worth watching!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGoC8FTLKSI

To close, I would just like to pose a question to think about, how can your daily communication be improved by being aware of the quality and quantity of what is being said?

Cultural norms affecting tempo of language in a speech community

In chapter three Chaika discusses how communication is separated and described into style categories. Style of communication varies widely based on the speaking acronym. The speaking acronym is used to breakdown any particular communication experience and in use of further studying and learning about the speakers and the communication itself that is occurring. The speaking acronym stands: the "s" stands for setting or where the communication experience takes place. "P" stands for participants; who is involved. "E" stands for  events: this serves to answer "what?" "A" stands for acts or sequences; in  a particular event there will be several or at least a few acts. "K" stands for key or mood and tone of an event. "I" stands for instrumentality or the means of communication: for example texting versus talking in person. "N" stands for norms: rules of meaning for actions and such. "G" stands for genre: forms of speaking or expressions.

For this blog I want to focus on norms. Norms are socially constructed rules or regulations that occur in communication. Norms are a culturally developed idea. They change with different cultures and exists differently based on the unspoken agreements of members of that community.
Culture itself is based on customs and traditions that a particular community develops. These traditions and customs can be simple day to day rituals and habits among members of the community. From culture comes the idea of norms in language communication and behavior or actions. Unspoken rules and standards are developed among the elders that are passed down to the younger generations. These norms are assessed and enforced in behaviors, speech pattern or language, clothes, ect.

In chapter 3 of Language the Social Mirror by Chaika, the author discusses style of language or speech. Chaika refers to tempo of speech. Tempo is how slow or fast a person talks. The author remarks on tempo having to do some with a person's familiarity to the variety being spoken. Generally, students learning a language will speak slower and with more deliberance so as to be careful to say the words properly. How much time a person waits before responding to the other speaker is called tempo, as well.
Culture is really what dictates tempo in a speech community. The community creates norms within their society that are determining factors of what is an acceptable tempo in particular situation. Culturally what the group decides is an acceptable or expected tempo in a given situation or for a particular group is known as a norm. Its a norm because the society has decided what is normal or not normal.
One of the best examples I can think of comes from latin countries versus European ones or the United States. Latin countries, speaking spanish, have come accustomed to speaking very rapidy. The tempo they use is quick in comparison to "white" countries. The tempo of how rapidly they speak comes from their cultural values and social norms that have created an acceptable standard of what a native speaker would have. Those that speak with different tempos typically stick out like a sore thumb and are immedietly identified as non-native to the area.
Spanish from spain (castillo) is the most rapid tempo of all the latin countries. Puerto Rican spanish is fast as well but carries a draging out towards the end of each statement. It is somewhat like a rythm, fast-fast-slow.
In American culture what are some norms that are created in our culture and translated into our language? 

communication style and the first agreement

Don Miguel Ruiz wrote a book called The Four Agreements (A Toltec Wisdom Book). The book outlines four  agreements that ancient southern Mexican men and women practiced. They were known as "women and men of knowledge."
The author describes how Mexican men and women of knowledge viewed the world around them and life itself very differently. Their outlook on life gave them the courage and strength to live lives that were full of joy and rid their lives of drama and daily anxieties.
They believed that the world in which we live in is a dream. Each person is a mirror. Humans themselves are pure loving light. The dream or the world is simply smoke that does not allow us to see what we really are.  Confusion in life comes from the wall of fog or smoke between the mirrors made by the interpretations of the images of light: the dreams of humans.

 "...I am looking at myself in all of you, but we don't recognize each other because of the smoke in-between us. The smoke is the dream, and the mirror is you, the dreamer." (page xix)

The dream of the planet is the collective dream of billions of smaller, personal dreams. The dream of the planet is made up of a planet that includes all of society's rules, its laws, beliefs, religions, its different culture and ways to be.
 The outside dream has so many rules that when a new human is born, we hook the child's attention and introduce these rules into his or her mind. Attention is simply the ability we have to discriminate and to focus only on that which we want to perceive. As we develop a need for attention we can become very competitive.
The outside dream hooks our attention and teaches us what to believe, beginning with the language we speak. Language is the code for understanding and communication between humans. Every letter, every word in each language is an agreement. The only way to store information is by agreement. As soon as we agree, we believe it, and this is called faith.
Don Miguel Ruiz describes domestication of humans. This is a process by which the outside dream is translated to the inside dream and a whole belief system is created.
Through this belief system Don Miguel Ruiz describes how man is destroyed through contradicting agreements learned and internalized from birth. With these agreements people begin to judge others based how well they follow rules. Those that do not follow rules are punished and when the rules are followed rewards are given. A need to hook other people's attention in order to get a reward develops. A fear is created: the fear of being rejected becomes the fear of not being good enough.
All the agreements we have made for our existence must be broken so that we can break free of the prison in our minds. To replace all other agreements there are four simple agreements that are made that if followed can lead to a fulfilling life and freedom in our own dream.

The first agreement is be impeccable with your words. This agreement is the agreement that all others stem off of. It focuses on how humans use language. Words are incredibly powerful and when used become black or white magic. The author calls these words magic because when  we use our words we place spells on people. They can choose to believe our words and internalize them: in turn making an agreement or they can choose to reject them by not believing them and not making an agreement. When someone believes in our words and makes an agreement, we have hooked their attention.
To understand being impeccable with our words, it is important to note what the word "impeccable" means: from the Latin word pecatus meaning sin and im means without. Sin is really anything that is said, done, felt, or believed against ourselves. When we choose to be impeccable with our words, we take responsibility for our actions, and do not judge or blame ourselves.

In this way we can understand that our words, all words, any words, that come out of our mouths are creating agreements with others and with ourselves. Our word choices will make or break us and in the same way words we choose to listen to will make or break us. The key here is that we are conscious in the process of choosing the words we speak and we take an active role in what words we value and internalize.

In chapter three of Language, the social mirror, by Chaika, she defines the word style. Style is defined as "different modes of communicative strategy that create a communication system in its own right, one that determines how a social interaction will proceed, or if it will proceed at all. Style is bound up with our presentation of self, the image we convey to others. Interactants mutually apply style both to guide and manipulate others." (pg 55)
The style or way in which we choose to communicate, including word choice, shows others and the self the agreements we have made with ourselves. When we actively engage in a shared style with other people we are expressing shared agreements. If someone approaches us with hostility: in an angry and vile style of communicating, and we reject their words and refuse to make an agreement with what they have said, we are communicating in a different style. In order to communicate one party will have to conform to the other parties style, otherwise communication can not successfully occur. This means that if we refuse to communicate in their style (refuse to believe in their words and make agreements) they must change their style to meet ours or there will be no communication.
As I understand it, our communicative style is how we outwardly express agreements we have made with ourselves on the inside. We can choose to be impeccable with our words, not using styles of communicating that go against our internal spirit, and aligning our inside world with our outside world.

What are agreements you have made with yourself over the years of your life that are destroying the person you are? What styles are you communicating with others and what agreements are you expressing to others when you use those styles?

Ego versus spirit

Wayne Dyer once said that, "all reality is a conflict between ego and spirit." In one of his conferences he mentioned a poet named Tagore. The poet described ego. The poem is listed below. The poem is a beautiful description of the effects of ego on our lives as humans living with pride and competition.

I have many words that have made a strong impact on my life. Some of these terms have been good, while others have been bad. Those terms that represent strong ideals and morals in one's life are called "God-terms." They are "words to live by." The opposite of this is called "devil-terms." These are terms that represent strong negative anti-God-terms. These words consistently have dark connotations. The ideas they represent are rejected  and avoided by people.
For me the word "ego" is a devil term. This term represents the grand flaw of the human race. Spirit is the opposite of this word. Ego is the idea that we as humans are in constant competition with others. We become separated from other humans and ultimately from God. The word "God" represents a spiritual peace and serenity: a kind of connectedness with a greater power. Ego is a separation of us as humans from this serenity. The ideas of ego and spirit are things that I think about everyday and as time goes on I become more aware of it in my life and in others around me.
Ego is the idea that we need to be better than other people and a constant pursuit of it. Ego is a need to announce events and achievements in our life. It can be as simple as not trusting your instincts and inner voice of what is the best next move: needing a consensus on making decisions in life.
Spirit is the opposite of this. Its a silent serenity and trust in your inner voice in life making decisions. My brother once said to me, "life is to be lived and not talked about or discussed." It is not needing to announce achievements and events or constantly seeking advice. All the answers and all needed guidance is already within us. There is no need to look outside of ourselves for approval or a spiritual connection with our great father (or higher power). He has been with us the whole time. He never left our side.
Below is listed the poem by the poet Tagore. He describes ego and how it is a part of us as a human being. Spirit will always be needed to overcome ego.

Ego by Rabindranath Tagore

" I went out alone on the way to my trist but who is this me in the dark? I step aside to avoid his presence but I escape him not. He makes the dust rise from the earth with his swagger. He adds his loud voice to every word I utter. He is my own little self, my lord. He knows no shame but I am ashamed to come to thy door in his company."

On a daily basis, I think about areas of my habitual lifestyle that I have let ego overcome spirit. This is the question I pose to my readers, what are areas of your life you have allowed ego to overrun your sense of spirit? And consequently how can spirit be the main force guiding our lives?