1 00:00:00,090 --> 00:00:04,504 Hey there, Shankar here. Do you feel like you've lost your ability to focus? 2 00:00:04,587 --> 00:00:09,237 Do you start a task and then quickly find yourself distracted by something else? 3 00:00:09,321 --> 00:00:11,510 We explore the research on attention. 4 00:00:11,940 --> 00:00:16,461 and how you can begin to reclaim your ability to focus in the latest episode 5 00:00:16,544 --> 00:00:18,180 on our new YouTube channel. 6 00:00:18,570 --> 00:00:23,824 Go to youtube.com slash at hidden brain or click the link in the show notes 7 00:00:23,907 --> 00:00:25,330 for today's episode. 8 00:00:26,070 --> 00:00:27,780 Okay. Here's today's show. 9 00:00:33,630 --> 00:00:35,890 This is Hidden Brain. I'm Shankar Vedanta. 10 00:00:36,570 --> 00:00:40,710 When children are very small, their minds are often an open book. 11 00:00:41,040 --> 00:00:43,900 They say what they mean. They blurt out things. 12 00:00:46,080 --> 00:00:49,140 This can come across as both cruel and charming. 13 00:00:50,500 --> 00:00:55,416 The little boy laughs aloud when someone slips on a banana peel and gets hurt. 14 00:00:55,499 --> 00:00:58,960 The little girl tells her uncle that his face is ugly. 15 00:00:59,490 --> 00:01:00,323 Thank you. 16 00:01:01,830 --> 00:01:06,706 In Hans Christian Andersen's famous folktale, The Emperor's New Clothes, 17 00:01:06,789 --> 00:01:10,150 a child is the only one who speaks truth to power. 18 00:01:10,234 --> 00:01:15,798 The king has been taken in by con men who pretend to clothe him in marvelous robes 19 00:01:15,882 --> 00:01:21,516 that are actually non-existent. The king's courtiers marvel at their majesty's fine 20 00:01:21,599 --> 00:01:24,260 garments even though he is walking around naked. 21 00:01:26,280 --> 00:01:29,817 Finally, a small child blurts out what everyone can see, 22 00:01:29,900 --> 00:01:31,840 but no one wants to say aloud. 23 00:01:33,090 --> 00:01:34,920 the king. is a fool. 24 00:01:38,680 --> 00:01:42,000 The folktale has many parallels in real life. 25 00:01:42,650 --> 00:01:47,220 Authoritarian leaders throughout history have surrounded themselves with yes-men 26 00:01:47,303 --> 00:01:50,270 who tell them their every action is wise and brave. 27 00:01:51,670 --> 00:01:54,870 When we listen to stories like the emperor's new clothes, 28 00:01:54,954 --> 00:01:56,947 most of us identify with the child. 29 00:01:57,030 --> 00:02:01,627 We think that if we were in that situation, we too would be honest. 30 00:02:01,710 --> 00:02:03,840 We too. would speak truth to power. 31 00:02:10,740 --> 00:02:16,920 and mean what we say. It turns out most of us are not the kid in the story. 32 00:02:17,310 --> 00:02:18,360 We are the courtiers. 33 00:02:20,490 --> 00:02:24,750 The power and the peril of coming clean... 34 00:02:25,110 --> 00:02:27,330 This week on Hidden Brain. 35 00:02:31,620 --> 00:02:34,560 Thank you. 36 00:02:42,750 --> 00:02:46,690 Get to the point. Don't mince your words. Lay it all on me. 37 00:02:47,220 --> 00:02:51,809 We have countless expressions about the value of being direct with others. 38 00:02:51,892 --> 00:02:56,880 And yet, as we go through life, we often don't just say what we mean. We hedge. 39 00:02:57,360 --> 00:02:59,200 We weave. We dodge. 40 00:03:00,300 --> 00:03:04,639 At Harvard University, psychologist Steven Pinker studies language, 41 00:03:04,722 --> 00:03:09,721 social relations, and the mind. He has thought deeply about what our evasions 42 00:03:09,804 --> 00:03:13,087 and euphemisms might reveal about us. Steve Pinker, 43 00:03:13,170 --> 00:03:15,480 welcome to Hidden Brain. Thank you. 44 00:03:15,990 --> 00:03:19,259 Steve, as an eminent member of the Harvard faculty, 45 00:03:19,342 --> 00:03:24,188 you are sometimes called upon to help the university president raise money. 46 00:03:24,272 --> 00:03:29,017 Tell me what this is like. Do you have to wine and dine potential donors? 47 00:03:29,100 --> 00:03:32,340 Well, there was one episode that sticks in memory. 48 00:03:32,423 --> 00:03:37,191 That was when the president of the university recruited me to have dinner 49 00:03:37,274 --> 00:03:40,447 with a, as they say, a high net worth individual. 50 00:03:40,531 --> 00:03:45,897 That is a euphemism for filthy rich. This was one of the world's highest net worth 51 00:03:45,980 --> 00:03:50,748 individuals, as the fundraising office says, or to use another euphemism, 52 00:03:50,831 --> 00:03:52,360 the development office. 53 00:03:59,100 --> 00:04:06,100 The goal, of course, was to solicit a very, very, very large donation or, 54 00:04:06,273 --> 00:04:12,872 again, another euphemism, a gift to Harvard from this high net worth 55 00:04:12,956 --> 00:04:18,473 individual. And it was at an expensive, quiet restaurant. 56 00:04:18,557 --> 00:04:25,557 Me and the university president were seated at a quiet remote table waiting 57 00:04:25,927 --> 00:04:28,580 for our partner to join us. 58 00:04:29,100 --> 00:04:33,758 And we conferred and the president indicated that we would see how 59 00:04:33,841 --> 00:04:39,361 the conversation proceeded. We wouldn't bring up the gift, obviously. In fact, 60 00:04:39,445 --> 00:04:41,600 I wouldn't bring it up at all. 61 00:04:43,300 --> 00:04:48,020 Establish a warm rapport, a mood of conviviality, of intimacy. 62 00:04:48,103 --> 00:04:54,218 And as we were having this conversation in this dark corner of a rather romantic 63 00:04:54,301 --> 00:04:57,400 restaurant, it reminded me of something. 64 00:04:59,100 --> 00:05:01,200 I was single and I was out on a hot date. 65 00:05:03,120 --> 00:05:08,083 Because, you know, both parties kind of know what you're there for, 66 00:05:08,166 --> 00:05:12,903 what issue is kind of hanging over them. But it would be gauche, 67 00:05:12,987 --> 00:05:18,326 to say the least, to just blurt it out, even though both sides know what 68 00:05:18,410 --> 00:05:20,820 the evening is ultimately about. 69 00:05:23,040 --> 00:05:29,960 so i can imagine that one reason the university president wants you by his side 70 00:05:30,043 --> 00:05:37,043 is because the potential donor this high net worth individual will feel good about 71 00:05:37,312 --> 00:05:43,877 having dinner with a star member of the faculty so you're not the eye candy 72 00:05:43,961 --> 00:05:46,567 but you're the the brain candy 73 00:05:46,650 --> 00:05:51,605 I was the brain candy. You know, on any date, or many dates, 74 00:05:51,689 --> 00:05:56,812 there's entertainment. You go to a concert, you go to a movie. 75 00:05:56,895 --> 00:06:00,675 So that's kind of the entertainment. But also, 76 00:06:00,758 --> 00:06:06,637 I was part of the deal insofar as a lot of tech entrepreneurs are very, 77 00:06:06,721 --> 00:06:13,104 very smart people who forwent a career in writing or academia or intellectual 78 00:06:13,187 --> 00:06:16,567 activities in order to pursue their work. 79 00:06:16,650 --> 00:06:20,785 goal of founding a successful company. But they're very smart. 80 00:06:20,869 --> 00:06:25,208 They're very curious. They kind of miss the banter, the repartee, 81 00:06:25,292 --> 00:06:29,971 the intellectual discussion, being close to the cutting edge of ideas. 82 00:06:30,055 --> 00:06:33,509 They genuinely are intellectually curious and smart. 83 00:06:33,593 --> 00:06:38,817 And forging a connection with a university is a way for them to be a member of 84 00:06:38,900 --> 00:06:41,690 a community that they long to be part of. 85 00:06:46,650 --> 00:06:51,737 do. But what that evening was all about was, give us, you know, 86 00:06:51,820 --> 00:06:57,621 hundreds of millions of dollars. We'll name something after you and you'll get 87 00:06:57,704 --> 00:07:03,353 to hang out with interesting people. That's the quid pro quo. But, you know, 88 00:07:03,437 --> 00:07:07,653 if when this gentleman sat down, the president said, hey, 89 00:07:07,736 --> 00:07:12,790 if you give us $150 million, then we'll name the program after you. 90 00:07:17,370 --> 00:07:20,462 other Harvard faculty as often as you want, 91 00:07:20,546 --> 00:07:24,893 they would put a kind of pall over the evening. It would be, 92 00:07:24,977 --> 00:07:30,506 even though it would have cut out a lot of time, these are busy individuals, 93 00:07:30,589 --> 00:07:36,119 but somehow offering to save that time would be like on a date saying, okay, 94 00:07:36,202 --> 00:07:40,190 so are we going to have sex at the end of this or not? 95 00:07:42,470 --> 00:07:46,125 There's a sense of which that would have been a shocking thing to say and a not 96 00:07:46,209 --> 00:07:49,402 shocking thing to say. at the same time, because both parties know it. 97 00:07:49,485 --> 00:07:51,472 They kind of know that the other one knows it, 98 00:07:51,555 --> 00:07:55,072 but they may not know that the other one knows that they know that the other one 99 00:07:55,155 --> 00:07:56,105 knows they know it. 100 00:07:56,250 --> 00:08:02,482 Language has to do two things at once. It's a channel of communication. 101 00:08:02,566 --> 00:08:07,197 Bits and bytes are exchanged for particular purposes, 102 00:08:07,280 --> 00:08:12,712 sharing information, negotiating agreements. At the same time, 103 00:08:12,796 --> 00:08:19,796 it establishes a particular kind of social relationship. Are we just transactional 104 00:08:26,250 --> 00:08:31,720 warm, intimate relationship? Is it a relationship of dominance? That is, 105 00:08:31,803 --> 00:08:36,733 is one person clearly the dominant and the other the subordinate? 106 00:08:36,816 --> 00:08:41,592 People care a lot about which of those relationships they have. 107 00:08:41,675 --> 00:08:47,068 And the way you often cement them is with explicit verbal declarations. 108 00:08:47,152 --> 00:08:51,387 In the case of a romantic couple, it's like, I love you, 109 00:08:51,471 --> 00:08:54,710 and then they reciprocate with I love you. 110 00:08:56,250 --> 00:09:00,114 can be nonverbal cues having a nice dinner together. 111 00:09:00,198 --> 00:09:03,667 That's often the way a friendship is cemented. 112 00:09:03,750 --> 00:09:05,370 *music* 113 00:09:05,970 --> 00:09:07,970 . 114 00:09:11,190 --> 00:09:14,234 In the course of this dinner that you were having with this high net worth 115 00:09:14,317 --> 00:09:17,657 individual, how did the conversation go? I'm assuming you didn't start by talking 116 00:09:17,740 --> 00:09:20,446 about money or perhaps money didn't come up at all through most of 117 00:09:20,529 --> 00:09:21,429 that conversation. 118 00:09:21,960 --> 00:09:24,611 Money never came up. It was a lively conversation. 119 00:09:24,694 --> 00:09:27,509 This was a very smart person, intellectually curious. 120 00:09:27,592 --> 00:09:31,391 He talked about the Human Genome Project, the development of the brain, 121 00:09:31,474 --> 00:09:33,060 issues facing the university. 122 00:09:34,050 --> 00:09:39,837 economics. The actual cold, hard financial transaction was, I think, 123 00:09:39,921 --> 00:09:44,758 relegated to the "my people will call your people" stage. 124 00:09:44,842 --> 00:09:51,492 And some of that was out of earshot of me being the, merely the entertainment, 125 00:09:51,576 --> 00:09:57,967 not one of the partners. But the idea, both on a date and in a solicitation 126 00:09:58,051 --> 00:10:03,910 for funds, is to avoid the impression that the relationship is transactional. 127 00:10:04,230 --> 00:10:08,250 The idea is that we are in a relationship of sharing, 128 00:10:08,490 --> 00:10:11,250 of warmth, of intimacy, of mutual concern. 129 00:10:11,930 --> 00:10:16,627 And so all the signals have to indicate that. 130 00:10:16,710 --> 00:10:20,690 Now, in the case of solicitation of a donation, 131 00:10:20,990 --> 00:10:26,787 as, of course, with sex and romance, there actually often is a genuine relationship 132 00:10:26,870 --> 00:10:30,850 together with the actual exchange of favors. 133 00:10:32,470 --> 00:10:39,470 But still, a lot of emotional capital goes into preventing any impression 134 00:10:40,890 --> 00:10:43,307 that this is a transactional relationship. 135 00:10:43,390 --> 00:10:48,427 Those do occur, but I suspect that probably the most munificent gifts 136 00:10:48,510 --> 00:10:53,327 tend to occur when they are considered to be, as they say, a gift, 137 00:10:53,410 --> 00:10:58,210 something that is layered on top of a communal relationship. 138 00:11:03,350 --> 00:11:06,312 And this is, in the case of the university, 139 00:11:06,395 --> 00:11:09,370 the intellectual stimulation and exchange, 140 00:11:09,710 --> 00:11:15,107 together with the prestige of not being merely a capitalist profit maximizer, 141 00:11:15,190 --> 00:11:20,130 but also a philanthropist for cultural and educational institutions. 142 00:11:20,610 --> 00:11:22,450 Those are the ultimate incentives. 143 00:11:23,410 --> 00:11:30,410 So I'm wondering at a dinner like this, and the analogy to sexual courtship 144 00:11:38,739 --> 00:11:40,170 is apt, 145 00:11:40,770 --> 00:11:44,565 there might come a point in the dinner where in some ways something actually has 146 00:11:44,649 --> 00:11:47,230 to be communicated, that this is not just a dinner. 147 00:11:47,650 --> 00:11:50,427 In other words, what happens if a high net worth individual says, 148 00:11:50,510 --> 00:11:53,127 this was a delightful conversation, I really enjoyed meeting Steve Pinker, 149 00:11:53,210 --> 00:11:57,647 and then goes back to his hedge fund or his tech company to continue to make money 150 00:11:57,730 --> 00:11:59,827 and has no interest in Harvard going forward. 151 00:11:59,910 --> 00:12:01,747 That would not be a successful dinner. 152 00:12:01,830 --> 00:12:02,367 Exactly. 153 00:12:02,450 --> 00:12:09,450 And this is where a lot of what informally we call social skills, social acumen, 154 00:12:10,230 --> 00:12:14,047 jargon of psychology is sometimes called theory of mind. 155 00:12:14,130 --> 00:12:17,327 That is your theory of what's going on in the other person's mind. 156 00:12:17,410 --> 00:12:19,327 As you say, you don't let the moment slip. 157 00:12:19,410 --> 00:12:24,950 On the other hand if you make it too overt too early then it feels like 158 00:12:25,033 --> 00:12:31,524 a transactional relationship as opposed to one of mutual generosity I wondering did 159 00:12:31,607 --> 00:12:35,330 the donor come through Did you get the big gift 160 00:12:36,850 --> 00:12:42,900 I think not as big as had been hoped. So maybe I was not charming enough. 161 00:12:45,130 --> 00:12:48,118 Also, donors, you know, donors, well, actually, no, there was a donor. 162 00:12:48,201 --> 00:12:49,297 Now that I think of it, 163 00:12:49,380 --> 00:12:54,770 the donor did not have the entity named after himself. So there was a donation. 164 00:12:55,010 --> 00:12:58,620 but he chose having something named after him at Harvard, 165 00:12:59,210 --> 00:13:04,330 came second to the various buildings with his own name plastered on them. 166 00:13:13,710 --> 00:13:17,927 I want to talk about an example of indirect speech in the political arena. 167 00:13:18,010 --> 00:13:23,187 In 2016, then-presidential candidate Donald Trump insulted Nikki Haley, 168 00:13:23,270 --> 00:13:25,490 who was the governor of South Carolina. 169 00:13:25,980 --> 00:13:29,830 Here's how a TV station in South Carolina described the exchange. 170 00:13:30,570 --> 00:13:34,880 A Twitter battle tonight between Nikki Haley and Donald Trump, of all people. 171 00:13:35,100 --> 00:13:39,047 The Republican presidential frontrunner tweeted this message earlier today, 172 00:13:39,130 --> 00:13:43,550 and it said, quote, the people of South Carolina are embarrassed by Nikki Haley. 173 00:13:44,200 --> 00:13:46,750 Well, the South Carolina governor responded simply, 174 00:13:47,380 --> 00:13:48,230 bless your heart. 175 00:13:48,790 --> 00:13:52,267 So, Steve, when hews by Americans from southern states, 176 00:13:52,350 --> 00:13:54,910 Does bless your heart mean bless your heart? 177 00:13:55,910 --> 00:13:58,190 It does not mean bless your heart. 178 00:13:58,930 --> 00:14:03,131 And it was rather clever on her part because he was, obviously, 179 00:14:03,214 --> 00:14:05,730 they were in a contest for dominance. 180 00:14:07,210 --> 00:14:10,367 One way to play it is with in-your-face insults. 181 00:14:10,450 --> 00:14:12,647 That's the kind of playground trash talk. 182 00:14:12,730 --> 00:14:19,730 Haley, rather than taking the bait and meeting him in the same arena, 183 00:14:20,525 --> 00:14:22,927 tries to step above it 184 00:14:23,010 --> 00:14:27,085 with the non sequitur. Bless your heart, doesn't make sense in context, 185 00:14:27,169 --> 00:14:28,667 because that's not what you 186 00:14:28,750 --> 00:14:34,250 say to someone who just insulted you. So listeners have to then puzzle, well, geez, 187 00:14:34,630 --> 00:14:38,257 she's not just saying things at random. She had a reason to say that. 188 00:14:38,341 --> 00:14:39,387 Why did she say that? 189 00:14:39,470 --> 00:14:45,690 and to read between the lines, it's this kind of trash talk does not wound me. 190 00:14:45,950 --> 00:14:52,107 I consider myself to have a strong enough reputation and I have enough confidence 191 00:14:52,190 --> 00:14:57,743 that I believe that I will not be lowered in status because of the content of 192 00:14:57,827 --> 00:15:03,599 your insult by not playing that game It is the case also that I think especially 193 00:15:03,683 --> 00:15:05,220 in the American South 194 00:15:05,660 --> 00:15:09,637 bless your heart is not just a wish for your continued good health. 195 00:15:09,720 --> 00:15:14,920 It could also be, you know, another two or three word phrase that might be 196 00:15:15,003 --> 00:15:18,900 unprintable, but is couched in much more diplomatic language. 197 00:15:20,140 --> 00:15:24,797 Indeed. And the language of diplomacy, as with all of our speech, 198 00:15:24,880 --> 00:15:27,060 that is not meant to be taken literally. 199 00:15:27,180 --> 00:15:28,330 And that's a lot of it. 200 00:15:28,840 --> 00:15:31,400 There's a lot of interpreting in context. 201 00:15:31,680 --> 00:15:36,017 And the way that humans do it is by adhering to a principle of relevance 202 00:15:36,100 --> 00:15:39,077 and of cooperation. That is, the ground rules are 203 00:15:39,160 --> 00:15:44,777 the listener thinks to himself or to herself, what did they mean 204 00:15:44,860 --> 00:15:47,340 that would explain what they just said? 205 00:15:47,980 --> 00:15:52,780 And so any socially competent listener can say she is signaling, 206 00:15:53,220 --> 00:15:56,520 you have not wounded me. I'm not playing that game. 207 00:15:56,660 --> 00:16:01,160 I am confident enough that I don't feel the need to reply to that insult. 208 00:16:08,680 --> 00:16:12,300 So often, what we say aloud doesn't represent what we're thinking. 209 00:16:12,960 --> 00:16:16,900 When we come back, the many roles that indirect speech plays in our lives. 210 00:16:17,660 --> 00:16:21,060 Also, when to say what we mean and when this can be a mistake. 211 00:16:21,580 --> 00:16:22,997 You're listening to Hidden Brain. 212 00:16:23,080 --> 00:16:24,100 I'm Shankar Vedanta. 213 00:16:24,880 --> 00:16:31,880 This is Hidden Brain. I'm Shankar Vedantam. 214 00:16:40,320 --> 00:16:42,737 Steven Pinker is a psychologist at Harvard University 215 00:16:42,820 --> 00:16:45,940 who studies the nuances of language and social relations. 216 00:16:46,680 --> 00:16:50,540 Steve, if we were to sketch something of a taxonomy of indirect speech, 217 00:16:50,720 --> 00:16:54,617 one of the first on the list might be the lies that we tell 218 00:16:54,700 --> 00:16:58,000 in order to protect the feelings of the people we love. 219 00:16:58,100 --> 00:17:01,300 Can you talk about this idea, perhaps with some examples, Steve? 220 00:17:01,400 --> 00:17:02,233 Sure. 221 00:17:03,600 --> 00:17:06,580 Someone shows up in an outfit, 222 00:17:06,680 --> 00:17:10,030 you know that they've taken a lot of effort to beautify themselves. 223 00:17:10,220 --> 00:17:12,317 And even if you think that it might be in ghastly taste, 224 00:17:12,400 --> 00:17:14,097 you might say, oh, that's beautiful. 225 00:17:14,180 --> 00:17:15,013 You look great. 226 00:17:16,580 --> 00:17:22,417 Or even more fraught is often if someone is an artist 227 00:17:22,500 --> 00:17:29,500 and they show you their objet d and you have to comment on it There so many ways 228 00:17:30,184 --> 00:17:37,184 for that to go wrong It could be if it a painting of a red barn it could be kitsch 229 00:17:38,160 --> 00:17:41,020 If it's too abstract, it could be incomprehensible. 230 00:17:42,120 --> 00:17:47,660 So you have to say, beautiful, striking, powerful, strong, 231 00:17:48,360 --> 00:17:52,057 even if you may think privately that it's hideous. 232 00:17:52,140 --> 00:17:57,972 Again, the goal there, again, let's tie it back to the underlying explanation, 233 00:17:58,055 --> 00:18:01,536 is that there is a relationship to be cemented, 234 00:18:01,619 --> 00:18:04,880 and each one wishes the best for the other. 235 00:18:05,540 --> 00:18:07,900 Neither one is superior to the other. 236 00:18:09,060 --> 00:18:11,060 Each would do anything for the other. 237 00:18:11,260 --> 00:18:15,857 Those are the fictions that underlie a relationship of friendship. 238 00:18:15,940 --> 00:18:18,767 I call them fictions because they can't always be true, 239 00:18:18,850 --> 00:18:22,154 but that's the background assumption that makes friends friends, 240 00:18:22,237 --> 00:18:23,560 that makes lovers lovers. 241 00:18:24,620 --> 00:18:27,285 What that means is you don't want to, say, 242 00:18:27,368 --> 00:18:31,997 blurt out anything that would directly contradict that tacit assumption. 243 00:18:32,080 --> 00:18:39,080 I'm thinking of how this is also true at the level of international relationships. 244 00:18:49,600 --> 00:18:52,160 You know, there is a hierarchy between countries, 245 00:18:52,280 --> 00:18:54,217 countries that are richer and more powerful, 246 00:18:54,300 --> 00:18:56,097 and there are countries that are poorer and weaker. 247 00:18:56,180 --> 00:18:58,557 But very often in international settings, 248 00:18:58,640 --> 00:19:01,337 when diplomats sit down or the leaders of countries sit down, 249 00:19:01,420 --> 00:19:03,697 And, you know, they're very complimentary to one another. 250 00:19:03,780 --> 00:19:05,537 They say nice things about one another. 251 00:19:05,620 --> 00:19:09,669 So even though, you know, there is some hierarchy between the countries, 252 00:19:09,752 --> 00:19:10,817 everyone agrees that 253 00:19:10,900 --> 00:19:15,842 in this public forum, we have to pretend like we are equals or we have to pretend 254 00:19:15,926 --> 00:19:17,980 like we deeply care about one another. 255 00:19:18,080 --> 00:19:20,406 Can you talk about the idea that this doesn't just happen at the level 256 00:19:20,489 --> 00:19:21,557 of interpersonal relationships? 257 00:19:21,640 --> 00:19:24,160 It happens at the level of diplomacy and nations? 258 00:19:25,360 --> 00:19:25,997 Oh, absolutely. 259 00:19:26,080 --> 00:19:30,778 And the perhaps most conspicuous fiction is simply the iconography of the United 260 00:19:30,862 --> 00:19:31,337 Nations. 261 00:19:31,420 --> 00:19:38,420 where Vanuatu, a tiny island nation in the South Pacific, and China or Russia are, 262 00:19:41,300 --> 00:19:43,870 at least in the General Assembly, are treated identically. 263 00:19:43,953 --> 00:19:45,197 They have the same size desk, 264 00:19:45,280 --> 00:19:48,946 the same size flag, and the same privileges. In fact, 265 00:19:49,029 --> 00:19:51,917 the word diplomacy, which we sometimes use 266 00:19:52,000 --> 00:19:56,217 to refer to our everyday interactions, but technically refers to the relationship 267 00:19:56,300 --> 00:19:59,940 between nation-states, reminds us that there is 268 00:20:00,080 --> 00:20:07,080 a lot in international relations that does not consist of actual brawn or brute force 269 00:20:08,692 --> 00:20:15,692 nor wealth, GDP, but relationships of respect, status, power, dignity, 270 00:20:15,785 --> 00:20:22,186 and to make things happen and to establish stable relationships. 271 00:20:22,270 --> 00:20:24,600 There's an awful lot of 272 00:20:25,070 --> 00:20:29,976 posturing symbolization that goes into international relations. 273 00:20:30,059 --> 00:20:35,915 There's a famous book by Barry O'Neill that shows that every year there are 274 00:20:35,998 --> 00:20:41,933 probably a hundred acts between countries that are purely symbolic. That is, 275 00:20:42,016 --> 00:20:48,110 two leaders have dinner together, or one sends a vice president to the funeral 276 00:20:48,193 --> 00:20:54,370 of an ex-head of state of the other, or they exchange students or zoo animals, 277 00:20:55,070 --> 00:21:00,459 or they attend a ceremony in which they raise a flag or formally apologize. 278 00:21:00,542 --> 00:21:06,150 There's an awful lot of just social relationships that go on between the heads 279 00:21:06,233 --> 00:21:07,067 of state. 280 00:21:18,590 --> 00:21:24,190 So in 2011, then President Barack Obama had a hot mic moment 281 00:21:25,070 --> 00:21:27,811 What happened, Steve? Describe this incident, 282 00:21:27,894 --> 00:21:33,019 because in some ways it peeled the curtain back on what's actually happening behind 283 00:21:33,103 --> 00:21:37,370 all of this diplomacy. What happened, Steve? Describe this incident. 284 00:21:38,060 --> 00:21:43,590 Yes, it was a hot mic moment. I discovered it when I clicked on some bait at 285 00:21:43,673 --> 00:21:48,612 the bottom of the webpage, the 10 most embarrassing hot mic moments. 286 00:21:48,696 --> 00:21:54,078 And one of them is when Barack Obama confided to Nicolas Sarkozy that both 287 00:21:54,161 --> 00:21:58,805 of them knew, namely that Bibi Netanyahu was a pain in the neck. 288 00:21:58,888 --> 00:22:02,055 I don't think they used that euphemism. Now, 289 00:22:02,138 --> 00:22:05,240 that was almost an international incident. 290 00:22:05,390 --> 00:22:11,456 Even though everyone knew that, there's an old saying from the journalist Michael 291 00:22:11,539 --> 00:22:17,377 Kinsley that the definition of a gaffe in Washington is when a politician says 292 00:22:17,460 --> 00:22:19,130 something that's true. 293 00:22:21,950 --> 00:22:27,869 Now, by the way, that has been made somewhat obsolete by Donald Trump, 294 00:22:27,952 --> 00:22:34,386 who has blurted out what in earlier times would have been considered gaffes. 295 00:22:34,469 --> 00:22:40,131 That's a whole other story of the different rules that he plays by. 296 00:22:40,214 --> 00:22:43,707 But the default rules are that leaders... 297 00:22:43,790 --> 00:22:48,635 of parties within a country, leaders of countries in international relations, 298 00:22:48,718 --> 00:22:52,110 have a relationship of mutual admiration and respect. 299 00:22:53,570 --> 00:22:56,746 So in this hot mic moment, Sarkozy apparently told Obama, 300 00:22:56,830 --> 00:23:01,150 I cannot bear Netanyahu, he's a liar. And Obama says, you're fed up with him, 301 00:23:01,233 --> 00:23:05,896 but I have to deal with him every day. And it's the kind of thing that people might 302 00:23:05,979 --> 00:23:10,013 talk about at dinner parties. But to realize the same thing is happening 303 00:23:10,097 --> 00:23:14,531 probably at the level of international relationships is really striking because 304 00:23:14,614 --> 00:23:19,106 you hear so little of it when you see the polite diplomacy that happens in these 305 00:23:19,189 --> 00:23:20,390 international forums. 306 00:23:21,380 --> 00:23:24,880 And the tension is that for... 307 00:23:25,370 --> 00:23:31,182 agreements to be negotiated, it helps when two parties consider themselves to be in 308 00:23:31,265 --> 00:23:35,159 a communal relationship. That lubricates getting to yes. 309 00:23:35,242 --> 00:23:39,633 But the paradox being that, especially at the level of leaders, 310 00:23:39,717 --> 00:23:44,960 things that they say in private can then float some norm that characterizes 311 00:23:45,043 --> 00:23:46,890 their public relationship. 312 00:23:47,930 --> 00:23:52,771 So in interpersonal settings, it can be a tricky balance to communicate what you 313 00:23:52,854 --> 00:23:55,848 mean while also trying to hide what you're saying. 314 00:23:55,931 --> 00:24:00,033 I want to play you a clip from the 1989 comedy When Harry Met Sally. 315 00:24:00,117 --> 00:24:03,665 Harry has complimented Sally's looks a bit too insistently, 316 00:24:03,748 --> 00:24:06,210 and she accuses him of coming on to her. 317 00:24:06,560 --> 00:24:10,732 All right, all right. Let's just say, just for the sake of argument, 318 00:24:10,815 --> 00:24:15,738 that it was a come on. What do you want me to do about it? I take it back, okay? 319 00:24:15,821 --> 00:24:18,260 I take it back. You can't take it back. 320 00:24:18,530 --> 00:24:21,020 Why not? Because it's already out there. 321 00:24:21,260 --> 00:24:25,060 Oh, geez, what are we supposed to do? Call the cops? It's already out there. 322 00:24:26,330 --> 00:24:28,821 So Steve, there's something very interesting here. 323 00:24:28,905 --> 00:24:33,230 Once something is out of the box, Sally is saying it can't be put back into the box? 324 00:24:34,430 --> 00:24:36,904 In that scene in the movie, they had just met. 325 00:24:36,988 --> 00:24:41,130 They're sharing a ride across country. That's why there was some motor noise 326 00:24:41,214 --> 00:24:42,270 in that audio clip. 327 00:24:42,590 --> 00:24:47,003 And, uh, the, they were not in a romantic or sexual relationship, 328 00:24:47,086 --> 00:24:51,638 even though as with my, my fundraising dinner was, uh, in the back, 329 00:24:51,721 --> 00:24:57,033 it had to be the back of their minds. Uh, but there's a big difference between 330 00:24:57,116 --> 00:25:02,913 something being common knowledge, as Sally put it out there and something being known 331 00:25:02,996 --> 00:25:07,824 privately by each of them. They're, they're, they're grownups. They're, 332 00:25:07,907 --> 00:25:08,741 you know, 333 00:25:12,590 --> 00:25:17,030 one has to know that the possibility of a sexual relationship has crossed 334 00:25:17,114 --> 00:25:20,748 their minds. But each one could think about the other. Well, 335 00:25:20,831 --> 00:25:24,218 she doesn't know exactly what's running through my mind. 336 00:25:24,302 --> 00:25:28,742 Maybe she thinks I'm dense, or she could think maybe he thinks I'm naive. 337 00:25:28,825 --> 00:25:31,700 However, when it is, as she said, Out there. 338 00:25:32,000 --> 00:25:36,838 That is when it is said in plain language, then the other person knows that you know. 339 00:25:36,921 --> 00:25:39,440 The common knowledge is no longer deniable. 340 00:25:47,000 --> 00:25:51,180 Another kind of indirect speech is the humblebrag. 341 00:25:51,380 --> 00:25:54,690 Describe what this is, Steve. Can you think of some examples that you've come 342 00:25:54,773 --> 00:25:56,573 by humble bragging in your own life? 343 00:25:56,960 --> 00:26:02,916 Oh, yes. I once saw a documentary with an eminent British evolutionary biologist, 344 00:26:02,999 --> 00:26:07,836 John Maynard Smith, be recognizable to any evolutionary biologist. 345 00:26:07,920 --> 00:26:09,560 And the British are... 346 00:26:09,740 --> 00:26:15,491 champions, ninjas at Humble Bragging. And he was being interviewed and I asked him 347 00:26:15,574 --> 00:26:19,617 why he went into the field that he did. And he said, well, 348 00:26:19,701 --> 00:26:25,451 originally I was interested in physics, but I realized I wasn't smart enough to do 349 00:26:25,535 --> 00:26:30,432 physics. Any idiot can do biology. Now, this is a truly brilliant man. 350 00:26:30,515 --> 00:26:35,780 He invented the entire field of evolutionary game theory, a powerful idea. 351 00:26:39,740 --> 00:26:46,740 doing kind of two things, and this was the genius of the expert Humblebrag. 352 00:26:47,240 --> 00:26:51,717 He was not saying that he was so coarse as to 353 00:26:51,800 --> 00:26:57,336 have a boast. I realized I was a smart person and I could make a contribution 354 00:26:57,419 --> 00:27:02,517 to biology because I was so smart. I was smarter than other biologists. 355 00:27:02,600 --> 00:27:08,282 But by saying any idiot can do biology, both saying I don't have to worry about 356 00:27:08,365 --> 00:27:13,974 people thinking that I'm an idiot. If I call myself an idiot or compare myself 357 00:27:14,057 --> 00:27:17,258 to idiots, people will know to blow that off. 358 00:27:17,341 --> 00:27:20,260 I have the confidence to do that because 359 00:27:21,800 --> 00:27:28,377 in doubt. By my lights, biology is hard. If he's saying any idiot can do biology, 360 00:27:28,460 --> 00:27:34,954 and I'm an idiot, the kind of idiot who can do biology, I'm thinking, well, gee, 361 00:27:35,038 --> 00:27:39,394 I find biology kind of hard. Does that mean that I am, 362 00:27:39,478 --> 00:27:45,477 unlike Sir John Maynard Smith, I am not of the caliber that would find it 363 00:27:45,560 --> 00:27:50,349 easy. I find it hard, and therefore I'm even lower than him in intelligence than 364 00:27:50,433 --> 00:27:54,369 if you were to say it outright. So it works at multiple levels as, 365 00:27:54,453 --> 00:27:56,280 in general, wit, charm, charm. 366 00:27:56,660 --> 00:28:01,835 tact, social skill often refer to cases where the desired message comes not 367 00:28:01,919 --> 00:28:07,585 from the literal content, but from several layers of thinking about what the other 368 00:28:07,668 --> 00:28:11,582 person thinks about what you think about what they think. 369 00:28:11,665 --> 00:28:15,508 That kind of chess game of thinking several moves ahead, 370 00:28:15,592 --> 00:28:20,500 except instead of on the chessboard, it's in the brains of two people. 371 00:28:26,660 --> 00:28:28,720 you 372 00:28:32,770 --> 00:28:37,192 There's a related idea that is beautifully captured in the comedy series Curb 373 00:28:37,275 --> 00:28:39,883 Your Enthusiasm. Larry David, playing himself, 374 00:28:39,967 --> 00:28:44,213 has donated money for a wing of a non-profit building which is named after 375 00:28:44,296 --> 00:28:48,426 him. The other wing displays only the inscription, Donated by Anonymous. 376 00:28:48,509 --> 00:28:52,814 At the ribbon-cutting ceremony, Larry is talking to his soon-to-be ex-wife, 377 00:28:52,897 --> 00:28:56,851 Cheryl, when he discovers who the anonymous donor is. It's his rival, 378 00:28:56,934 --> 00:29:01,030 Ted Danson. He donated the whole wing. He didn't want anybody to know. 379 00:29:01,970 --> 00:29:06,590 So he apparently wanted somebody to know. He told me, okay? 380 00:29:06,710 --> 00:29:09,460 Who else did he tell? How do you know he just told you? 381 00:29:09,740 --> 00:29:13,305 clean is he didn't need on fanfare and didn't need a fanfare what fanfare i don't 382 00:29:13,388 --> 00:29:16,862 like the fanfare you're saying i like fanfare you can tell a few people he just 383 00:29:16,946 --> 00:29:20,555 doesn't need the whole world to know that he donated all the money you know what i 384 00:29:20,639 --> 00:29:22,227 didn't need the world to know either 385 00:29:22,310 --> 00:29:25,180 Nobody told me that I could be anonymous and tell people. 386 00:29:25,264 --> 00:29:26,870 I would have taken that option. 387 00:29:27,440 --> 00:29:33,920 So that's a great line, Steve. Nobody told me I could be anonymous and tell people. 388 00:29:34,250 --> 00:29:40,796 Oh, it is brilliant, because it strikes to the heart of a very deep paradox about 389 00:29:40,879 --> 00:29:46,279 altruism. Going back to the medieval Jewish philosopher Maimonides, 390 00:29:46,362 --> 00:29:53,071 who had a ladder of righteousness, where the size of the gift doesn't determine how 391 00:29:53,155 --> 00:29:56,510 righteous it is, according to Maimonides. 392 00:29:56,930 --> 00:29:59,917 If you do it for the glory of God, 393 00:30:00,000 --> 00:30:05,555 for the recognition, that's considered less indicative of an underlying trait 394 00:30:05,639 --> 00:30:10,022 of charitability or generosity than if you do it anonymously. 395 00:30:10,106 --> 00:30:13,903 For the obvious reason that if you do it anonymously, 396 00:30:13,987 --> 00:30:19,908 there's no ulterior motive of reputation, nor can you call in the favor and expect 397 00:30:19,991 --> 00:30:24,961 some special treatment or quid pro quo. In experiments that I've done 398 00:30:25,044 --> 00:30:27,900 in collaboration with some postdocs and 399 00:30:30,000 --> 00:30:35,447 more moral credit to someone who gives less money anonymously than more money 400 00:30:35,530 --> 00:30:39,480 publicly, which Larry David used to great comic effect. 401 00:30:43,140 --> 00:30:45,892 So in some ways in that clip from Curb Your Enthusiasm, 402 00:30:45,975 --> 00:30:48,057 Ted Danson is trying to have it both ways. 403 00:30:48,140 --> 00:30:52,026 He's getting the moral benefit of being seen as an anonymous giver while also 404 00:30:52,109 --> 00:30:54,448 telling people that he was the anonymous giver. 405 00:30:54,532 --> 00:30:58,140 He's really getting it both ways, and that's what gets Larry so upset. 406 00:30:58,800 --> 00:31:03,575 Indeed, yes. It underscores the paradox of reputation in altruism, 407 00:31:03,658 --> 00:31:07,403 that ultimately reputation is a motive for altruism. 408 00:31:07,486 --> 00:31:12,188 You want other people to think that you're kind, you're generous, 409 00:31:12,271 --> 00:31:17,709 you're beneficent. On the other hand, if other people perceive that that is 410 00:31:17,792 --> 00:31:23,892 the motive, they give you less credit as a genuinely altruistic person because maybe 411 00:31:23,975 --> 00:31:26,920 you're in it for the long-term benefits. 412 00:31:28,440 --> 00:31:31,724 Another kind of indirect speech is the innuendo. 413 00:31:31,807 --> 00:31:36,985 I want to play you a clip that captures this from the TV show The Sopranos. 414 00:31:37,068 --> 00:31:42,596 In this scene, a member of the Soprano mob family accosts an old acquaintance in 415 00:31:42,680 --> 00:31:47,857 a store and pays for his candy bar. Hey, how you doing? Hey. Listen, Danny, 416 00:31:47,941 --> 00:31:52,908 we just want you to know how glad we are a guy like he was on that jury. 417 00:31:52,991 --> 00:31:57,200 That mob thing, that junior soprano trial. Hard-working guy? 418 00:31:57,720 --> 00:32:02,500 Wife and two kids performing a civic duty we should all take part in? 419 00:32:02,820 --> 00:32:04,880 We know you do the right thing. 420 00:32:06,740 --> 00:32:09,640 So what do you hear that's being said and not said, Steve? 421 00:32:10,650 --> 00:32:15,044 Well, that is an excellent example of a veiled threat. 422 00:32:15,128 --> 00:32:20,102 What's being veiled is if you vote to convict Junior Soprano, 423 00:32:20,186 --> 00:32:26,819 we will harm your family. And it can be effective by striking fear into the heart 424 00:32:26,902 --> 00:32:33,370 of the target without literally exposing themselves to the crime of extortion. 425 00:32:34,110 --> 00:32:38,517 So what the mobster was doing in that clip from The Sopranos was basically offering 426 00:32:38,600 --> 00:32:42,303 something that had plausible deniability. If someone came up and said, 427 00:32:42,386 --> 00:32:45,387 is this what you really meant? The mobster could say, no, 428 00:32:45,470 --> 00:32:47,850 I'm just wishing this old acquaintance well. 429 00:32:48,300 --> 00:32:52,879 Exactly. And the question is, how plausible is the deniability? 430 00:32:52,962 --> 00:32:58,947 And crucially, the level of plausibility for the speaker and the hearer have to be 431 00:32:59,031 --> 00:33:04,868 different for it to work. So you want it to be not so subtle that it'll fly over 432 00:33:04,951 --> 00:33:10,492 the head of the hearer, but subtle enough that by higher standards of proof, 433 00:33:10,576 --> 00:33:15,460 such as in a court of law, it would not meet that higher standard. 434 00:33:16,080 --> 00:33:19,487 So if a motorist gets pulled over by a cop, telling the cop, you know, 435 00:33:19,571 --> 00:33:22,330 here's $100, let's make this go away right now, you know, 436 00:33:22,413 --> 00:33:25,920 that could get you in trouble because you're bribing the police officer. 437 00:33:26,004 --> 00:33:29,760 But if you say, you know, is there some way we can get this resolved without, 438 00:33:29,844 --> 00:33:31,855 you know, having to do a lot of paperwork, 439 00:33:31,938 --> 00:33:34,697 that might send the message of what you're trying to say, 440 00:33:34,781 --> 00:33:38,831 but give you some plausible deniability if the cop turns out to be an honest cop. 441 00:33:39,860 --> 00:33:45,047 Yes, enough deniability that it couldn't be the basis of conviction by the standard 442 00:33:45,130 --> 00:33:49,301 of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a very high threshold. 443 00:33:49,384 --> 00:33:53,491 But in everyday conversation, we don't need that high a threshold. 444 00:33:53,574 --> 00:33:56,793 We can take our chances that, you know, oh, come on. 445 00:33:56,876 --> 00:33:59,967 It's pretty obvious what he said. So in that case, 446 00:34:00,051 --> 00:34:02,347 plausible deniability in the case of. 447 00:34:02,430 --> 00:34:07,230 A court case, it's near, it's deniability beyond a reasonable doubt. 448 00:34:07,380 --> 00:34:08,820 of a much higher standard. 449 00:34:14,520 --> 00:34:19,635 A few years ago, the writer Bruce Feiler was given an assignment by a magazine. 450 00:34:19,719 --> 00:34:25,097 He was to try and bribe a series of maitre d's at popular New York City restaurants 451 00:34:25,181 --> 00:34:30,362 in order to get a good table. What did he imagine would happen when he did this, 452 00:34:30,445 --> 00:34:31,278 Steve? 453 00:34:31,470 --> 00:34:37,824 So the assignment filled him with dread. He kept imagining the incensed retorts 454 00:34:37,907 --> 00:34:42,387 of some outraged maitre d' like, how dare you insult me? 455 00:34:42,470 --> 00:34:46,543 Or what kind of establishment do you think this is? 456 00:34:46,626 --> 00:34:50,130 Or do you think you could get in with that? 457 00:35:01,470 --> 00:35:05,639 of saying, if I give you 20 bucks, would you seat me right away? 458 00:35:05,722 --> 00:35:11,021 Would you let me jump the queue? He would hold the $20 bill in peripheral vision, 459 00:35:11,104 --> 00:35:15,606 not look at it, look the maitre d' in the eye and say something like, 460 00:35:15,689 --> 00:35:21,187 I was wondering if you had a cancellation, or I was hoping maybe you could fit us in, 461 00:35:21,270 --> 00:35:25,771 or this is a really important night for me. The interesting thing is, 462 00:35:25,855 --> 00:35:27,250 it worked every time. 463 00:35:31,470 --> 00:35:36,007 So, despite all our fears, 464 00:35:36,090 --> 00:35:41,506 all maitre d's in manhattan are bribable or at least they were at the time he wrote 465 00:35:41,589 --> 00:35:46,740 this article which which leads to the question what was he and by extension all 466 00:35:46,824 --> 00:35:51,842 of us are are so afraid of um that is what would be so terrible if they uh if 467 00:35:51,925 --> 00:35:56,612 the maitre d rebuffed the bribe i think the answer is that going back to 468 00:35:56,696 --> 00:36:00,870 our different kinds of social relationships breaching the tacit 469 00:36:06,090 --> 00:36:12,626 relationship has emotional costs, which we experience as embarrassment, 470 00:36:12,710 --> 00:36:17,941 awkwardness, if they are accidental, if they're one time, 471 00:36:18,024 --> 00:36:24,374 or as disbelief, outrage, shock, if they are intentional or repeated. 472 00:36:24,457 --> 00:36:30,890 In the case of a maitre d', you know, a maitre d', they're dressed in 473 00:36:36,090 --> 00:36:41,046 They carry themselves with the authority that this is their kingdom. 474 00:36:41,129 --> 00:36:44,825 They get to seat people when and where they choose. 475 00:36:44,908 --> 00:36:48,382 That's part of the dignity of being a maitre d'. 476 00:36:48,465 --> 00:36:52,161 If you're tendering an outright quid pro quo bribe, 477 00:36:52,245 --> 00:36:55,718 you're kind of treating them like a sales clerk, 478 00:36:55,802 --> 00:37:01,730 like a transactional partner, undermining that aura of authority that they have. 479 00:37:06,090 --> 00:37:10,500 leads to that emotion of on the part of the speaker, it would be awkwardness. 480 00:37:10,583 --> 00:37:14,176 On the part of the recipient of the bribe, it would be outrage, 481 00:37:14,259 --> 00:37:16,710 at least in the imagination of the writer. 482 00:37:17,040 --> 00:37:22,534 And even in the case where it did succeed, which it did at every time, 483 00:37:22,617 --> 00:37:28,589 it may not have succeeded had he tendered the bribe as a naked quid pro quo. 484 00:37:28,673 --> 00:37:31,780 He did do it indirectly, and it worked. 485 00:37:35,780 --> 00:37:37,777 Music Thank you. 486 00:37:37,860 --> 00:37:41,894 You know, it's interesting. We talked earlier about the challenge of sexual 487 00:37:41,977 --> 00:37:46,066 courtship in the clip that I played you from when Harry met Sally. You know, 488 00:37:46,150 --> 00:37:50,184 if Harry had shown his hand, but it turns out that Sally was completely not 489 00:37:50,267 --> 00:37:52,599 interested, maybe Sally was married already, 490 00:37:52,683 --> 00:37:56,800 and maybe Sally has no interest in Harry, that would be a slap in the face. 491 00:38:07,860 --> 00:38:10,639 face that's lost. There's no humiliation that is meted out, 492 00:38:10,723 --> 00:38:13,173 even as both parties make clear where they stand. 493 00:38:14,040 --> 00:38:18,427 Indeed. And in fact, in the studies that I have done, 494 00:38:18,510 --> 00:38:22,897 that is one of the motives for using indirect speech, 495 00:38:22,980 --> 00:38:29,139 that it avoids the change in relationship from one in which one person has 496 00:38:29,222 --> 00:38:34,620 the authority, the superiority of striking down another's offer. 497 00:38:44,040 --> 00:38:50,627 warmth and communal sharing. So you don't want to spoil the relationship with one 498 00:38:50,711 --> 00:38:57,051 person kind of holds the prerogative of sexual consent and can blatantly imply 499 00:38:57,134 --> 00:39:00,839 that the other is not worthy of it. Obviously, 500 00:39:00,922 --> 00:39:06,192 the time comes when there's no choice. We'll just have to say no. 501 00:39:06,275 --> 00:39:07,840 And what part of no 502 00:39:14,040 --> 00:39:17,729 fiction of a completely platonic friendship, 503 00:39:17,812 --> 00:39:21,758 or in more dangerous and fraught circumstances, 504 00:39:21,842 --> 00:39:27,417 such as a supervisor and an employee or a professor and a student, 505 00:39:27,500 --> 00:39:33,332 it would be not just breaching a norm, but breaching a law or a rule. 506 00:39:33,416 --> 00:39:40,360 And they may not want to go through the trouble of making a court case out of it. 507 00:39:44,040 --> 00:39:44,873 you 508 00:39:47,070 --> 00:39:51,427 Indirect speech can be a useful lubricant greasing the wheels of social interaction. 509 00:39:51,510 --> 00:39:55,199 But it's not always what is called for. When we come back, 510 00:39:55,282 --> 00:39:59,250 when it's good to be coy and when it's necessary to be blunt. 511 00:40:00,010 --> 00:40:03,310 You're listening to Hidden Brain. I'm Shankar Vedanta. 512 00:40:06,850 --> 00:40:07,683 you 513 00:40:13,930 --> 00:40:17,770 This is Hidden Brain. I'm Shankar Vedantam. 514 00:40:19,110 --> 00:40:23,609 Steven Pinker is a psychologist at Harvard University. He's the author, 515 00:40:23,692 --> 00:40:27,933 most recently, of the book When Everyone Knows That Everyone Knows, 516 00:40:28,017 --> 00:40:32,470 Common Knowledge and the Mysteries of Money, Power and Everyday Life. 517 00:40:33,040 --> 00:40:38,826 Steve, there are many vivid examples of the importance of using direct speech. 518 00:40:38,909 --> 00:40:45,080 You talk about the crash of Korean Air 801 in 1997. What happened in that tragedy? 519 00:40:46,090 --> 00:40:51,687 This is a case in which the pilot in a social setting in which there was a clear 520 00:40:51,771 --> 00:40:57,652 hierarchy and he was the authority and the other pilots and technicians had to defer 521 00:40:57,736 --> 00:41:02,907 to him. In this case, it was clear to the second and third in command that 522 00:41:02,990 --> 00:41:07,167 a disaster was possible, that the plane was losing altitude. 523 00:41:07,251 --> 00:41:09,310 It was on a collision course. 524 00:41:16,090 --> 00:41:21,590 crash, wake up, do something, or let us take over the controls, 525 00:41:21,673 --> 00:41:27,793 resulting in tragedy. It's one of the cases where for all the socially 526 00:41:27,876 --> 00:41:32,224 lubricating benefits of indirectness and innuendo, 527 00:41:32,307 --> 00:41:36,301 there are times when it becomes cruel, tragic, 528 00:41:36,384 --> 00:41:42,410 unjust to persist in failing to describe something in so many words. 529 00:41:43,270 --> 00:41:46,241 So there's a trend out there known as radical honesty, 530 00:41:46,324 --> 00:41:50,766 which holds that we should all be saying exactly what's on our minds without any 531 00:41:50,849 --> 00:41:55,121 indirection or euphemism. One of the leading proponents of radical honesty is 532 00:41:55,204 --> 00:41:59,390 a psychotherapist named Brad Blanton. Here's how he makes the case for it. 533 00:41:59,560 --> 00:42:04,414 So the idea is being able to be happy and be related to people and not be guarded 534 00:42:04,497 --> 00:42:07,828 and careful and protected and afraid of being found out. 535 00:42:07,911 --> 00:42:12,216 That's a lousy way to live. It's a better way to live, to live out loud, 536 00:42:12,300 --> 00:42:16,483 let the chips fall where they may, have a few hard times now and then, 537 00:42:16,567 --> 00:42:18,677 but still, they get all cleaned up. 538 00:42:18,760 --> 00:42:20,460 Because everybody tells the truth. 539 00:42:21,520 --> 00:42:25,270 That does sound appealing, Steve. Do you think it always works in practice? 540 00:42:25,780 --> 00:42:30,718 To put it mildly, no, that it is often a hellscape when everyone is honest 541 00:42:30,801 --> 00:42:35,671 with everyone else. And there are some comedies and science fiction plots 542 00:42:35,754 --> 00:42:40,624 that actually play that out for the amusement and sometimes the horror of 543 00:42:40,707 --> 00:42:45,780 an audience. But the reason that it doesn't is that this is a world in which 544 00:42:45,864 --> 00:42:50,055 there are no social relationships. Everything is transactional. 545 00:42:50,138 --> 00:42:52,920 There's no warmth. There's no friendship. 546 00:42:55,780 --> 00:43:00,648 have compromising thoughts about even our closest friends. Oh, 547 00:43:00,732 --> 00:43:07,038 that was a stupid comment. But blurting those things out just corrodes the tacit 548 00:43:07,121 --> 00:43:13,267 assumptions that make a friendship or a romantic relationship or even a stable 549 00:43:13,351 --> 00:43:19,740 relationship of respect of a supervisor and a supervisee stable and sustainable. 550 00:43:25,780 --> 00:43:30,600 There would be no... long-term stable relationships of cooperation. 551 00:43:38,650 --> 00:43:44,456 You cite a French essayist and philosopher from the 17th century who wrote about what 552 00:43:44,539 --> 00:43:49,250 would happen if we were all open books. What does Blaise Pascal say? 553 00:43:49,360 --> 00:43:52,672 you He said that if everyone said what was on their minds, 554 00:43:52,755 --> 00:43:55,005 there would not be four friends in the world. 555 00:43:56,230 --> 00:44:00,480 And indeed, if there was a hidden microphone in my dining room, 556 00:44:00,563 --> 00:44:05,157 in the unbuttoned conversations that I have with my wife, my family, 557 00:44:05,241 --> 00:44:10,110 my close friends, and that was published tomorrow in the New York Times, 558 00:44:10,193 --> 00:44:12,050 I would be in deep trouble. 559 00:44:20,170 --> 00:44:26,073 honest comments that you make about other people, if voiced, 560 00:44:26,157 --> 00:44:29,087 would negate the assumption of 561 00:44:29,170 --> 00:44:35,009 infinite mutual respect and generosity that are the basis of friendships and 562 00:44:35,092 --> 00:44:40,074 of other relationships, relationships of decorum and cooperation. 563 00:44:40,158 --> 00:44:44,983 My favorite example, I don't know if you have a clip from this, 564 00:44:45,067 --> 00:44:51,295 was in the romantic comedy movie Tootsie, where in a scene in which the disguised 565 00:44:51,379 --> 00:44:57,140 Dustin Hoffman portraying an actress becomes intimate with a fellow actress 566 00:44:57,223 --> 00:44:58,470 on a soap opera, 567 00:44:59,170 --> 00:45:04,163 played by Jessica Lange, and she confesses to the disguised Dustin Hoffman. 568 00:45:04,246 --> 00:45:06,750 You know what I wish just once? What? 569 00:45:08,190 --> 00:45:12,326 That a guy could be honest enough just to walk right up to me and say, Hey, 570 00:45:12,410 --> 00:45:16,715 listen, you know, I'm confused about this, too. I could lay a big line on you. 571 00:45:16,798 --> 00:45:20,177 We could do a lot of role-playing. But the simple truth is... 572 00:45:20,260 --> 00:45:24,100 I find you very interesting, and I'd really like to make love with you. 573 00:45:25,240 --> 00:45:29,037 And then in a clever twist of fate, later in the movie, 574 00:45:29,120 --> 00:45:34,187 an undisguised and unrecognized Dustin Hoffman does meet Jessica Lange at 575 00:45:34,270 --> 00:45:37,150 a cocktail party, goes up to her and says, 576 00:45:37,233 --> 00:45:41,947 I could lay a big wine on you and we could do a lot of role playing. 577 00:45:42,030 --> 00:45:47,590 But the simple truth is, is that I find you very interesting and I'd really like 578 00:45:47,674 --> 00:45:51,823 to make love to you. You know, it's a system. And of course, 579 00:45:51,907 --> 00:45:54,940 she throws him a glass of wine in his face. 580 00:45:55,240 --> 00:46:02,240 showing our hypocrisy about our hypocrisy. Namely, we long for honesty, candor, 581 00:46:03,132 --> 00:46:10,132 not role-playing and beating around the bush, just saying what we mean, 582 00:46:10,224 --> 00:46:13,820 but really we would not tolerate it. 583 00:46:24,670 --> 00:46:29,234 So you've thought deeply about the costs and the benefits of indirect speech. 584 00:46:29,318 --> 00:46:33,761 I understand your wife recently challenged you to act on your own theories, 585 00:46:33,844 --> 00:46:38,529 and she took a leaf out of that story you told me about the magazine writer who 586 00:46:38,613 --> 00:46:41,510 managed to score great restaurant tables with a… 587 00:46:41,620 --> 00:46:45,160 $50 bribe. What was the challenge you laid down on the table, Steve? 588 00:46:46,240 --> 00:46:51,738 So we were having a lovely stroll in the Brooklyn waterfront late summer night 589 00:46:51,822 --> 00:46:56,676 and there was a River Cafe and lovely restaurant with a gorgeous view 590 00:46:56,759 --> 00:47:01,787 of Manhattan and we hadn't made a reservation and we're getting hungry. 591 00:47:01,870 --> 00:47:06,022 And I had a $50 bill in my pocket, which is a rare occasion. 592 00:47:06,105 --> 00:47:10,468 And so she's saying, well, look, you've explained how it works. 593 00:47:10,552 --> 00:47:14,010 It would be really good if we could get in there. 594 00:47:15,410 --> 00:47:18,570 You're the guy with the theory. Let's see if your theory works. 595 00:47:20,980 --> 00:47:24,147 And, you know, like the writer for Gourmet Magazine, 596 00:47:24,231 --> 00:47:28,273 I got to say it was terrifying. I don't know what I was afraid of, 597 00:47:28,357 --> 00:47:31,420 but it did require screwing up a lot of gumption. 598 00:47:33,280 --> 00:47:39,169 But I did. And I said, you know, if I have the courage of my convictions, 599 00:47:39,253 --> 00:47:40,427 I got to do it. 600 00:47:40,510 --> 00:47:46,263 And so I went in, but I was defeated by the sight that greeted me at the hostess 601 00:47:46,346 --> 00:47:51,807 station. There were two maitre d's, two elegantly attired, attractive women, 602 00:47:51,890 --> 00:47:57,715 both of whom smiled at me. And I realized that any innuendo that I tried with one 603 00:47:57,799 --> 00:48:00,779 would be immediately spotted by the other. 604 00:48:00,863 --> 00:48:04,510 Perhaps that's why they hired maitre d's in Paris. 605 00:48:10,510 --> 00:48:13,377 is eminently possible. Now, of course, restaurants, 606 00:48:13,460 --> 00:48:17,716 the owner of the restaurant has an incentive that his or her maitre d's not 607 00:48:17,799 --> 00:48:22,402 be bribable because then people would be loath to make reservations if they could 608 00:48:22,485 --> 00:48:27,204 just be delayed and delayed and delayed by people jumping the queue with $50 bills. 609 00:48:27,287 --> 00:48:31,196 So there's some conflict there between the interests of the maitre d, 610 00:48:31,279 --> 00:48:35,650 which is to accept a little tip on the side, allow their palms to be greased, 611 00:48:35,734 --> 00:48:37,990 and the interests of the owner. And I'm 612 00:48:40,510 --> 00:48:44,657 major deeds there just for that reason. So what happened? 613 00:48:44,741 --> 00:48:50,150 You had the $50 bill in your hand and you just put it back in your pocket? 614 00:48:50,233 --> 00:48:56,162 What did you do? I skulked away, yes, and we had a long walk to find a restaurant 615 00:48:56,245 --> 00:48:57,210 with a table. 616 00:49:10,510 --> 00:49:13,453 Steven Pinker is a psychologist at Harvard University. 617 00:49:13,536 --> 00:49:17,376 He is the author of the book, When Everyone Knows That Everyone Knows, 618 00:49:17,459 --> 00:49:21,243 Common Knowledge and the Mysteries of Money, Power and Everyday Life. 619 00:49:21,326 --> 00:49:24,717 Steve, thank you so much for joining me today on Hidden Brain. 620 00:49:24,800 --> 00:49:26,930 It's a pleasure. Thanks for having me. 621 00:49:30,090 --> 00:49:33,190 Hidden Brain is produced by Hidden Brain Media. 622 00:49:40,510 --> 00:49:47,510 I'm Shankar Vedantam. See you soon.