This is a great summary of various techniques used to control the conversation, dialogue, debate or negotiation.
The question comes to mind, why do we care so much about it?
If you have knowledge and your practice confirms it, and you are proficient at what you do, you don’t need to emphasize your “authority”. You are saying what you are saying, and you don’t care what others will make of it, if at all.
(Unless you are an educator, but then you will be aware of the role and you will modify your style, expression, terminology and structure accordingly. Because you care about the recipient of your message.)
The AD 2024 problem is that everyone is a master teacher and an expert. Especially when he/she watched a few YT clips, clicked something into AI dumb-boxes and can use anti-social media to become “influential”. You can’t win with these experts.
So, we have lost the ability to self-check ourselves and ask the primary question: “Do I know this subject?” If your answer is “yes”, go away. Go home, enjoy, you don’t need to be at this conference or podcast (unless you are a special guest there.) If your answer is negative, you need to activate the “I am now listening, learning and not thinking on my own” mode. If you don’t do this, disaster.
Watch Joe Rogan. He is the true embodiment of this awareness of own position in the matter. Even when he knows a lot about the subject, he withdraws and gives the floor to his guests - because they are invited there to be #1, to be the source of knowledge and information. Joe correctly understands his position as a facilitator and does not try to hijack the aura of his guests. And the best of all, he is truly listening to what they are saying. His questions show that he quickly processes what is being heard and comes up with in-depth requests to enrich the discussion for everybody. All teachers and all people working in and fo the public should learn this from Joe.
There are two levels of conversational control. One is out in the open where you (and the other) feel it is a win/lose situation. (on the Internet or something). That kind of control will be highly hierarchical, masculine and using all the tricks of the trade to dismiss, discredit and shut the other down. When you say (or joke) everyone is a master teacher (with no expertise), you are probably referring to this.
The other level of control is in a company setting. It may also be about dominance. But if the company has any sense, they have employees to gain from each, their experiences about the company operation. To receive that sharing you have to create a platform where each can put in their contribution (for consideration). Because people have different conversational styles, and are encouraged, or pushed back by different company conventions, you would have to be sensitive to get the most out of each person. It's these people that are your assets. That's a different kind of control.
I was always proficient at what I did and never doubted my contribution to the bottom line. But I had no one judging me, maybe a couple partners. In a larger setting, and if you know your contribution, but you don't get recognized, your boss takes all of your credit for himself. Then your loud-mouth colleague that actually produces very little, get promoted and becomes your new boss. Now you can produce so this bozo gets your credit. Meanwhile, you get no pay grade raises, and your new boss tells you to up production by 50%. (Well, you can stay overtime.)
I think an educator needs recognition, because that is what school is al about, grades are both for students and for the teachers. I think you can tell us about it.
You might know some of a conference subject, take interest, and be curious what this conference is going to present. Surely some of it will be a misapprehension. And you can notice that too.
I have never watched anything Joe Rogan, and I really don't watch any (very few) videos. Strange because as my legacy self, I worked six years full time doing long video interviews. In my heyday I was doing 100 per year. That is a lot of video editing. I could travel parts of the world and kept up my rhythm, interviewing wherever I went. I was the perfect listener, and the perfect collaborator / front man. I promoted 100's of people, and some of them over and over again. I always loved it, but now I couldn't be bothered, to look at my own, or anyone else's videos.
Some of this still rings true, but I’d say such constrained (male/female) research has limits, especially when it’s decades old, as this book of Tannen’s is. I’ve long admired her work and it meant a lot to me in the day, especially when I worked as a magazine editor. When I was at the Harvard Business Review in the ‘90s, I kept fighting the use of “hard” and “soft” management skills - just for example. Business lingo is ridiculously sexist and cliched, full of sports metaphors and references to marriage when discussing corporate alliances. It still is, if you scrape away the New Age bs of tech bros.
Here’s the thing: how women establish authority in various professions is more complex than this corporate frame. And ironically, some of the leadership skills that are most hyped now (team-building, empowering employees, mentoring) are traditionally female-coded. As an editor, I have to display plenty of authoritative judgment as well as the ability to connect so that writers will take in what I say rather than rejecting it. As a teacher, I play another version of this, yet it goes beyond subconscious ritual. I’m aware of my self-presentation and the need to establish authority. I think anyone who’s had to do code-switching is aware of their self-presentation within the larger frame of how we’ve been culturally conditioned to respond.
As for coaches, I know many women coaches. It’s a particular role than carries authority, but is not necessarily hyper-focused on criticism. It’s about supporting and pushing a client to do their nest work on their own terms. In that, it’s not quite like the old male-identified sports coach. It’s akin to being an editor or a teacher, but not the same. I’d argue that those roles involve a more authoritative stance.
Hello Martha, Everything I write in comments is not necessarily the belaboring of an old point. People's responses elicit new thoughts, for which I appreciate your comments. So it is just a discussion. Otherwise you may begin to think my stereotype of behavior is to be against everything. Although in total agreement there is nothing to write about.
I suppose I can get "too theoretical"? Too much might mean that it interferes with just living. Of course we were "just living"; before we had these thoughts, and we will be just living after playing with this theory (generalization and point of view on probable causation). There are tendencies to notice, if, or if not it is a "binary" could be one of them. I think not constrained.
Of course every human behavior is anecdotal, unique, and therefore one among 8 billion. We can report upon them, and be charmed. Science makes theories to say more about things, and see what there is that (sort-of) bundles together into a class, from which more might be said. Personally, I have had insight from Tannen. Like I say, this is the only one book I read. It is not so magical, but really obvious if someone (her) draws your attention to it. It has broadened me and made me more connective. I think it would be a value to our readers. I will make one more post (#4) in this "book-review" series. Then I may refer to it in other free-form posts.
I can say a few things about our other exchange on the ARGO site. I told the story of western female tourists that dress very scantily. It means that they want to be as nude as possible, just a little less than being arrested. My sample size were 100's, me just sitting in the corner-outside-cafe and watching them parade by. On dozens of days, and noting almost no one as a conservative in that wide age group.
I suggested they had an impulse to be provocative, to show off something, to be observed, what was that image that they were "selling"? You said (paraphrased), that I was reading too much into it, and they were "just having fun". I see it as their current "style" that is an imposed competition between their friends, and in their society. (Imposed meaning to get more friend-approval).
Society is a stereotype, not a thought out action for each occasion, so it becomes unconscious. What do you do if you see that certain social behavior contributes to dominance/repression? I say that you don't participate with it.
I don't go on Facebook because I know they surveil me. (Nor search with Google).
Actually I have arranged my life to avoid certain surveillance.
I don't buy anything that uses sexist advertising.
I don't buy anything from Amazon because I don't agree with that kind of monopoly.
I don't mark myself with any corporate logo (on clothing).
I don't mark myself with anything; tattoos or even jewelry, or special hairstyles.
I am not seeking connection nor identification with any group or religion.
And, I am not against anyone else if they wish to do it.
I would ask these young women why they choose minimal clothing. Well, no I wouldn't, because I'm sure they'd say they like it. Then I might ask what are the contributing factors to misogyny?
You're right, this book is 30 years old. She sights 150 reference books, which I supposed that she read, (over her career). there are 320 footnotes, which unfortunately I didn't read as I went along. They deepen her argument. So 30 years later, who are the current experts? What do they say about Linguistics these days?
She does report "tendencies" but doesn't call them constrained. They could be unconscious, until they are not. She sites other researchers working with young children and those tendencies start very early. She interviews both male and female managers that swing between styles, I suppose as the need arises, like you say, between authority and connection. So it is not subconscious, but still it might be that one style feels more natural for them.
I used to read the latest in management theory from time to time, and I realize it may change radically over the years. It was always way ahead of my concepts. However I never worked in a corporate setting. You also speak of outside the corporate frame. At most I had 3 - 4 employees. In construction there is a team, you hold it and I'll nail it down. Other coordination is to time subcontractors, so they get on the job and get off of it, ready for the next Sub. In other fields separate jobs are assigned, I sell and you ship and receive. In a team, you have to break the project up into components, right? Then coordinate that I am going fast enough to meet up with the others at the finishing date.
In these posts I have numbered 17 or 20 style differences or style rituals. Ritual is a word she uses throughout the book (maybe 150 times). Are these rituals no longer in use, or you just don't call them rituals anymore? You say you facilitate "code-switching" as need be, to tune you self-presentation. I do that also, but I say better now after reading this book. It is not complicated at all. Just the mention of it is enough to see it in action everywhere.
I feel pretty good with code-switching. Substack is a great opportunity for practice. I would almost say I don't really have a personality. But I have a toolbox full of personality traits, which I can choose among to fit my current objective. Usually, I start by mirroring the other's "energy level". Sure, I have my blind spots.
I notice these styles with others on substack, when I go to both male and female sites. Like on the last segment I said "commiserate" as a form of connection. Tannen had called it "trouble talk" among women. You want to give a listening, when someone has something to say. Why I feel blue. Oh, that same thing happened to me a few years back. That is loud and clear on many female sites in their comment section.
Then I notice in myself (in my rituals), I wouldn't want to engage that way. Or as Tannen suggested, men would offer a possible solution. That would be me. But Tannen says they don't want a solution, just a pat on the back and assurance that they are going to be alright. I would ask myself: why would you ever self-denigrate? It is just a relative judgement, and the truth is that you are in the middle. It is the ritual of both just being normal "folks". It is a soft entry. It works for connection when both use a soft approach. With opposing approaches, you will be judged one-down, and lack recognition.
Why would you ever complain? About anything, and to whom? You only complain because you found someone to listen. But they won't do anything about it. (Or me, I'll tell you how to get out if it, and quickly.) Or I'll ask you what are the options, and how come you have you selected this one? Even your problem is based on your judgement of it. Certainly the feelings come from that judgement. Well, that's how it works for me, every time.
I think I could coach. I would do it with questions, which you both ask and answer yourself.
This is a great summary of various techniques used to control the conversation, dialogue, debate or negotiation.
The question comes to mind, why do we care so much about it?
If you have knowledge and your practice confirms it, and you are proficient at what you do, you don’t need to emphasize your “authority”. You are saying what you are saying, and you don’t care what others will make of it, if at all.
(Unless you are an educator, but then you will be aware of the role and you will modify your style, expression, terminology and structure accordingly. Because you care about the recipient of your message.)
The AD 2024 problem is that everyone is a master teacher and an expert. Especially when he/she watched a few YT clips, clicked something into AI dumb-boxes and can use anti-social media to become “influential”. You can’t win with these experts.
So, we have lost the ability to self-check ourselves and ask the primary question: “Do I know this subject?” If your answer is “yes”, go away. Go home, enjoy, you don’t need to be at this conference or podcast (unless you are a special guest there.) If your answer is negative, you need to activate the “I am now listening, learning and not thinking on my own” mode. If you don’t do this, disaster.
Watch Joe Rogan. He is the true embodiment of this awareness of own position in the matter. Even when he knows a lot about the subject, he withdraws and gives the floor to his guests - because they are invited there to be #1, to be the source of knowledge and information. Joe correctly understands his position as a facilitator and does not try to hijack the aura of his guests. And the best of all, he is truly listening to what they are saying. His questions show that he quickly processes what is being heard and comes up with in-depth requests to enrich the discussion for everybody. All teachers and all people working in and fo the public should learn this from Joe.
There are two levels of conversational control. One is out in the open where you (and the other) feel it is a win/lose situation. (on the Internet or something). That kind of control will be highly hierarchical, masculine and using all the tricks of the trade to dismiss, discredit and shut the other down. When you say (or joke) everyone is a master teacher (with no expertise), you are probably referring to this.
The other level of control is in a company setting. It may also be about dominance. But if the company has any sense, they have employees to gain from each, their experiences about the company operation. To receive that sharing you have to create a platform where each can put in their contribution (for consideration). Because people have different conversational styles, and are encouraged, or pushed back by different company conventions, you would have to be sensitive to get the most out of each person. It's these people that are your assets. That's a different kind of control.
I was always proficient at what I did and never doubted my contribution to the bottom line. But I had no one judging me, maybe a couple partners. In a larger setting, and if you know your contribution, but you don't get recognized, your boss takes all of your credit for himself. Then your loud-mouth colleague that actually produces very little, get promoted and becomes your new boss. Now you can produce so this bozo gets your credit. Meanwhile, you get no pay grade raises, and your new boss tells you to up production by 50%. (Well, you can stay overtime.)
I think an educator needs recognition, because that is what school is al about, grades are both for students and for the teachers. I think you can tell us about it.
You might know some of a conference subject, take interest, and be curious what this conference is going to present. Surely some of it will be a misapprehension. And you can notice that too.
I have never watched anything Joe Rogan, and I really don't watch any (very few) videos. Strange because as my legacy self, I worked six years full time doing long video interviews. In my heyday I was doing 100 per year. That is a lot of video editing. I could travel parts of the world and kept up my rhythm, interviewing wherever I went. I was the perfect listener, and the perfect collaborator / front man. I promoted 100's of people, and some of them over and over again. I always loved it, but now I couldn't be bothered, to look at my own, or anyone else's videos.
.
Some of this still rings true, but I’d say such constrained (male/female) research has limits, especially when it’s decades old, as this book of Tannen’s is. I’ve long admired her work and it meant a lot to me in the day, especially when I worked as a magazine editor. When I was at the Harvard Business Review in the ‘90s, I kept fighting the use of “hard” and “soft” management skills - just for example. Business lingo is ridiculously sexist and cliched, full of sports metaphors and references to marriage when discussing corporate alliances. It still is, if you scrape away the New Age bs of tech bros.
Here’s the thing: how women establish authority in various professions is more complex than this corporate frame. And ironically, some of the leadership skills that are most hyped now (team-building, empowering employees, mentoring) are traditionally female-coded. As an editor, I have to display plenty of authoritative judgment as well as the ability to connect so that writers will take in what I say rather than rejecting it. As a teacher, I play another version of this, yet it goes beyond subconscious ritual. I’m aware of my self-presentation and the need to establish authority. I think anyone who’s had to do code-switching is aware of their self-presentation within the larger frame of how we’ve been culturally conditioned to respond.
As for coaches, I know many women coaches. It’s a particular role than carries authority, but is not necessarily hyper-focused on criticism. It’s about supporting and pushing a client to do their nest work on their own terms. In that, it’s not quite like the old male-identified sports coach. It’s akin to being an editor or a teacher, but not the same. I’d argue that those roles involve a more authoritative stance.
Hello Martha, Everything I write in comments is not necessarily the belaboring of an old point. People's responses elicit new thoughts, for which I appreciate your comments. So it is just a discussion. Otherwise you may begin to think my stereotype of behavior is to be against everything. Although in total agreement there is nothing to write about.
I suppose I can get "too theoretical"? Too much might mean that it interferes with just living. Of course we were "just living"; before we had these thoughts, and we will be just living after playing with this theory (generalization and point of view on probable causation). There are tendencies to notice, if, or if not it is a "binary" could be one of them. I think not constrained.
Of course every human behavior is anecdotal, unique, and therefore one among 8 billion. We can report upon them, and be charmed. Science makes theories to say more about things, and see what there is that (sort-of) bundles together into a class, from which more might be said. Personally, I have had insight from Tannen. Like I say, this is the only one book I read. It is not so magical, but really obvious if someone (her) draws your attention to it. It has broadened me and made me more connective. I think it would be a value to our readers. I will make one more post (#4) in this "book-review" series. Then I may refer to it in other free-form posts.
I can say a few things about our other exchange on the ARGO site. I told the story of western female tourists that dress very scantily. It means that they want to be as nude as possible, just a little less than being arrested. My sample size were 100's, me just sitting in the corner-outside-cafe and watching them parade by. On dozens of days, and noting almost no one as a conservative in that wide age group.
I suggested they had an impulse to be provocative, to show off something, to be observed, what was that image that they were "selling"? You said (paraphrased), that I was reading too much into it, and they were "just having fun". I see it as their current "style" that is an imposed competition between their friends, and in their society. (Imposed meaning to get more friend-approval).
Society is a stereotype, not a thought out action for each occasion, so it becomes unconscious. What do you do if you see that certain social behavior contributes to dominance/repression? I say that you don't participate with it.
I don't go on Facebook because I know they surveil me. (Nor search with Google).
Actually I have arranged my life to avoid certain surveillance.
I don't buy anything that uses sexist advertising.
I don't buy anything from Amazon because I don't agree with that kind of monopoly.
I don't mark myself with any corporate logo (on clothing).
I don't mark myself with anything; tattoos or even jewelry, or special hairstyles.
I am not seeking connection nor identification with any group or religion.
And, I am not against anyone else if they wish to do it.
I would ask these young women why they choose minimal clothing. Well, no I wouldn't, because I'm sure they'd say they like it. Then I might ask what are the contributing factors to misogyny?
.
You're right, this book is 30 years old. She sights 150 reference books, which I supposed that she read, (over her career). there are 320 footnotes, which unfortunately I didn't read as I went along. They deepen her argument. So 30 years later, who are the current experts? What do they say about Linguistics these days?
She does report "tendencies" but doesn't call them constrained. They could be unconscious, until they are not. She sites other researchers working with young children and those tendencies start very early. She interviews both male and female managers that swing between styles, I suppose as the need arises, like you say, between authority and connection. So it is not subconscious, but still it might be that one style feels more natural for them.
I used to read the latest in management theory from time to time, and I realize it may change radically over the years. It was always way ahead of my concepts. However I never worked in a corporate setting. You also speak of outside the corporate frame. At most I had 3 - 4 employees. In construction there is a team, you hold it and I'll nail it down. Other coordination is to time subcontractors, so they get on the job and get off of it, ready for the next Sub. In other fields separate jobs are assigned, I sell and you ship and receive. In a team, you have to break the project up into components, right? Then coordinate that I am going fast enough to meet up with the others at the finishing date.
In these posts I have numbered 17 or 20 style differences or style rituals. Ritual is a word she uses throughout the book (maybe 150 times). Are these rituals no longer in use, or you just don't call them rituals anymore? You say you facilitate "code-switching" as need be, to tune you self-presentation. I do that also, but I say better now after reading this book. It is not complicated at all. Just the mention of it is enough to see it in action everywhere.
I feel pretty good with code-switching. Substack is a great opportunity for practice. I would almost say I don't really have a personality. But I have a toolbox full of personality traits, which I can choose among to fit my current objective. Usually, I start by mirroring the other's "energy level". Sure, I have my blind spots.
I notice these styles with others on substack, when I go to both male and female sites. Like on the last segment I said "commiserate" as a form of connection. Tannen had called it "trouble talk" among women. You want to give a listening, when someone has something to say. Why I feel blue. Oh, that same thing happened to me a few years back. That is loud and clear on many female sites in their comment section.
Then I notice in myself (in my rituals), I wouldn't want to engage that way. Or as Tannen suggested, men would offer a possible solution. That would be me. But Tannen says they don't want a solution, just a pat on the back and assurance that they are going to be alright. I would ask myself: why would you ever self-denigrate? It is just a relative judgement, and the truth is that you are in the middle. It is the ritual of both just being normal "folks". It is a soft entry. It works for connection when both use a soft approach. With opposing approaches, you will be judged one-down, and lack recognition.
Why would you ever complain? About anything, and to whom? You only complain because you found someone to listen. But they won't do anything about it. (Or me, I'll tell you how to get out if it, and quickly.) Or I'll ask you what are the options, and how come you have you selected this one? Even your problem is based on your judgement of it. Certainly the feelings come from that judgement. Well, that's how it works for me, every time.
I think I could coach. I would do it with questions, which you both ask and answer yourself.
.