Speaker 1: Welcome to stuff you should know, a production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2: Hey, and welcome to the podcast. I'm Josh, and there's Chuck.
Speaker 2: I'm Chucky already.
Speaker 1: You know, you know I thought a moose apropos.
Speaker 2: Oh it's my turn to talk. Yeah, oh, well played.
Speaker 2: I'm not very good at this. As you know, if
Speaker 2: you have ever listened to the podcast, and I know
Speaker 2: you have because you're one of the co hosts, you
Speaker 2: know that I step on you a lot. Now, yep,
Speaker 2: I'll keep going with my turn constructional unit. Then how
Speaker 2: confused are people? Do you think right now?
Speaker 1: I don't know, probably very I mean we should say
Speaker 1: this is all just a bit to sort of demonstrate
Speaker 1: a conversational analysis. Yeah, well thatword demonst the analysis. If
Speaker 1: someone was sitting in another room making notes about how
Speaker 1: we were talking like a creep, Yeah, that would be
Speaker 1: a conversational analysis. We were just demonstrating poor communication pretty much.
Speaker 2: But it would be a bonanza for a conversation analyst
Speaker 2: a CAA as they like to call themselves. This is
Speaker 2: a super super niche field of science. I guess it
Speaker 2: would be a social science because it branched off from sociology,
Speaker 2: but one of the things that I've noticed about it
Speaker 2: is that people like to try to push it into
Speaker 2: a typical social science, right, like come up with some
Speaker 2: theories like why do people do these things that you
Speaker 2: guys are studying, and conversation analysis says, no, we're not
Speaker 2: going to do that. Instead, we are purely about observation,
Speaker 2: noticing patterns and then figuring out how those patterns predict
Speaker 2: other patterns, and how all these different patterns fit together
Speaker 2: in this grand way to make up conversation. And you
Speaker 2: might say, well, that's pretty boring, wouldn't you, Chuck.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'll let you finish and then I'll give
Speaker 1: you my take.
Speaker 2: Okay, you might say it's pretty boring if you were Chuck.
Speaker 2: The reason why it's interesting is because it reveals something
Speaker 2: about us that conversation is one of those things that
Speaker 2: we're really really good at without realizing what we're doing.
Speaker 2: That conversation is an amazing interaction between two or more
Speaker 2: people that gets stuff done, that shares information that you
Speaker 2: can make a case basically our entire human civilization is
Speaker 2: based on the fact that we're able to converse pretty
Speaker 2: much effortlessly, even though in a lot of times it
Speaker 2: just does not make sense.
Speaker 1: Yeah, my deal with this is I'll get to this
Speaker 1: episode and then I want to wipe it from my
Speaker 1: memory bank because I'm one of those people that the
Speaker 1: last thing I want to think about is how I'm
Speaker 1: conversing with somebody. And it reminds me that that scene
Speaker 1: in Better Off Dead, when early on John Cusack is
Speaker 1: having like his early A flashback, I think to his
Speaker 1: first meeting with his girlfriend and whether they're in his
Speaker 1: head and he's like, Oh, she just touched her nose.
Speaker 1: Does that mean I have something on my face? And
Speaker 1: then she's like, oh, he just touched his face, Do
Speaker 1: I mustard on my face or something like that? And
Speaker 1: then before you know it, they're just going crazy. And
Speaker 1: that's kind of what this does to me, is I
Speaker 1: don't want to think about Like I'm very much organic
Speaker 1: when it comes to stuff like this, and the last
Speaker 1: thing I want to think about is did I say
Speaker 1: that right? Or did I interrupt somebody? Or was I
Speaker 1: did I act interested enough? Like that kind of thing?
Speaker 1: Just I have no place for that in my life.
Speaker 2: That's funny because that is almost one hundred percent of
Speaker 2: what goes on in my mind when I'm talking or
Speaker 2: when someone else is talking like, I can't help but
Speaker 2: do that.
Speaker 1: I know, and I know that, and I feel for
Speaker 1: you for that because that can't be fun.
Speaker 2: It's really tiring. So Okay, this is like potentially a
Speaker 2: career ending raphic pick that I made.
Speaker 1: Hunt no, no, no, no, no. I just you know, it's interesting,
Speaker 1: and then I just don't want to ever think about it.
Speaker 2: Okay, we'll do a good job doing that, and I'm
Speaker 2: sorry for even picking it. Well, let's dive into all
Speaker 2: of this because it is interesting in and of itself,
Speaker 2: even though it is a really strange discipline in the
Speaker 2: way that it's set up.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it draws from a couple of fields. Primarily Libya
Speaker 1: helped us with this one, and I can tell because
Speaker 1: it's awesome. Ethn No methodology, and that is it's studying
Speaker 1: how people not just how they make sense of the world,
Speaker 1: but how they do it in relation to others and
Speaker 1: how they collaborate with others.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: And then socio linguistics, which is language but not just language,
Speaker 1: language specifically with like how it relates in specific cultures,
Speaker 1: in the context of different cultures. And there were three
Speaker 1: key players and researchers doing this in the nineteen seventies,
Speaker 1: mainly Yeah, at UCLA go bruins. The persone is a
Speaker 1: sociologist named Harvey Sachs, and he seems to have kind
Speaker 1: of been the ringleader here. He's the grand Pappy of
Speaker 1: conversation analysis. He started at UCLA in the sixties, that
Speaker 1: really got into this in the mid seventies.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and he stopped in the seventies because the poor
Speaker 2: guy died in a car crash at forty years old
Speaker 2: in nineteen seventy five. And he really only worked on
Speaker 2: this for just over a decade, but he figured it out.
Speaker 2: He laid this down, and part of it was that
Speaker 2: he benefited from working closely with some other sociologists, including
Speaker 2: Irvin Goffman, who was the star of our impression Management episode.
Speaker 2: And I think that might have been where I first
Speaker 2: heard of conversation in alliance. And then so he was
Speaker 2: working with IRVN. Goffman. They weren't doing the same thing,
Speaker 2: but they were both coming from that same strain of sociology,
Speaker 2: which is it was really transitional at a time from
Speaker 2: studying huge institutions like religion or government and zooming into
Speaker 2: a much more granular, almost micro interaction level. So that's
Speaker 2: what Goffman was into with impression management. Harvey Sachs was
Speaker 2: into that with conversation.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he didn't publish a lot of stuff. This wasn't
Speaker 1: like white paper, peer reviewed kind of stuff. That was
Speaker 1: mainly like, you know, sort of pre ted talk kind
Speaker 1: of thing like, Hey, isn't this interesting. Here's my lectures.
Speaker 1: I'm going to make them available. You can take a
Speaker 1: gander if you want. Right then, there was a student
Speaker 1: of SAS named Gail Jefferson there at ECLA who was
Speaker 1: a dance major but had this interesting job. She worked
Speaker 1: as a typist for the Department of Public Health, and
Speaker 1: part of that included transcribing sensitivity training sessions with prison guards,
Speaker 1: and so she got really interested in a very kind
Speaker 1: of key part of conversation with something called turntaking, when
Speaker 1: you you know, take turns talking and a lot of
Speaker 1: this will be about like the cues that people give
Speaker 1: to let the other person know, hey, now it's your
Speaker 1: turn to speak, or how to interject constructively or interrupt constructively,
Speaker 1: things like that. But that seemed to kind of fascinate
Speaker 1: her when she was transcribing these training sessions with the
Speaker 1: prison guards, and so she got interested in that. She
Speaker 1: ended up developing a whole system called the Jefferson transcription System,
Speaker 1: which you're going to talk about a little bit, basically,
Speaker 1: how to kind of make sense of all this stuff
Speaker 1: when you're writing down how people are speaking to one
Speaker 1: another and then later on it's kind of interesting. I
Speaker 1: think she worked with laughter. She was fascinated by laughter
Speaker 1: and how that works us way into a conversation and
Speaker 1: how someone may cue someone to laugh at something they've
Speaker 1: even said themselves by giving a small laugh after they've
Speaker 1: said that thing.
Speaker 2: Yeah. The third guy is Emmanual Sheglof, and he seems
Speaker 2: to have kind of taken the reins after Harvey Sachs
Speaker 2: passed away, that's my stake. He became the chair of
Speaker 2: the Conversation Analysis Department at UCLA, which seems to be
Speaker 2: the center of conversation analysis from what I can tell.
Speaker 2: He also received a Lifetime Achievement Award from the American
Speaker 2: Sociological Association in twenty ten. So he was a big
Speaker 2: man on campus essentially.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he was a big brewin on campus. But he
Speaker 1: they kind of started out and got, you know, with
Speaker 1: kind of the simpler side of things, which is like, hey,
Speaker 1: let's look at telephone calls and just sort of everyday
Speaker 1: interactions with people, like what do people say at the
Speaker 1: beginning of a phone call? What do people say at
Speaker 1: the end of a phone call? And this is sort
Speaker 1: of the bird's eye view of like just very basic
Speaker 1: interactions before they got more specific with their observations, I guess.
Speaker 2: Yeah. But also one of the genius things about studying
Speaker 2: phone calls is how do two people who aren't looking
Speaker 2: at each other know when it's their turn to talk?
Speaker 2: And they don't just exactly and they don't just sit
Speaker 2: there and talk over one another constantly and it's just
Speaker 2: one big jumbled mass. That's what I was talking about earlier.
Speaker 2: We're really good at conversation. We don't even realize it. Yeah,
Speaker 2: but one of the first things you have to do
Speaker 2: then is not just record the phone call. You have
Speaker 2: to transcribe it. And that's what Gail Jefferson came up with,
Speaker 2: was that method of transcribing that it's pretty clever. If
Speaker 2: you know what you're looking at. You can get a
Speaker 2: lot of information from this transcription if it's used the
Speaker 2: Jefferson method.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and this was like, you know, this came around
Speaker 1: the early seventies. This is when linguist Gnome Chomsky was
Speaker 1: kind of out there in the public sphere with his
Speaker 1: idea that there's a universal grammar and this doesn't you know,
Speaker 1: this didn't set out to disprove that or anything like that.
Speaker 1: It was really more of let's look at different cultures
Speaker 1: and dynamics within a conversation. Because Chomsky, and you know
Speaker 1: some of his cohorts, was like, you know, conversations are
Speaker 1: just you can't analyze this kind of stuff stmatically. The
Speaker 1: conversations are too irregular and too different between people. And
Speaker 1: they were like, nah, I think we can actually come
Speaker 1: up with some principles that are consistent enough to do it.
Speaker 1: And I think they did totally.
Speaker 2: And one of the first projects that they started, one
Speaker 2: of Harvey Sach's first projects was he worked with a
Speaker 2: psychiatric hospital, an emergency psychiatric hospital. So their work's pretty urgent,
Speaker 2: you can imagine. And one of the things that they
Speaker 2: wanted to figure out was how to get patients to
Speaker 2: give them their name when they called in, because there
Speaker 2: was a certain amount of reluctance, as you can imagine,
Speaker 2: especially back in the mid to late sixties.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they found out when a call was answered at
Speaker 1: one of these places, they would say, if they said
Speaker 1: just hello, the person might just say hello. But if
Speaker 1: they said, well, hi, this is doctor Charles Bryant. What
Speaker 1: can I do for you today? May I help you?
Speaker 1: The people were much more inclined to then respond by saying, oh, well,
Speaker 1: this is also Charles, and I'm calling because I'm having
Speaker 1: some intrusive thoughts or something like that.
Speaker 2: Right, And then the receptionists would go, ah, I got you,
Speaker 2: I got your name, we know your name now.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Sometimes they found that people would not respond in
Speaker 1: kind with their name, and in those cases, it's pretty
Speaker 1: interesting and this, you know, kind of provided another little
Speaker 1: nugget of information for how these things go. Yeah, when
Speaker 1: they did not say, oh, yeah, my name's Chuck and
Speaker 1: I'm having, you know, intrusive thoughts, they would sort of
Speaker 1: introduce like an like a disruptor. They would say something
Speaker 1: like huh or what and just a small little bump
Speaker 1: in the road to change the conversational flow, right, subtly
Speaker 1: kind of saying like I don't want to give you
Speaker 1: my name without saying I don't want to give you
Speaker 1: my name.
Speaker 2: Right, Because what they found, conversation analysts found was that
Speaker 2: we follow set patterns, these kind of prescribed rhythms of conversations.
Speaker 2: So if you interrupt this the flow of one type
Speaker 2: of conversation would say a huh, a new set of
Speaker 2: rules comes up that takes the conversation from there that
Speaker 2: both people are aware of but don't realize they're aware of,
Speaker 2: which to me, I hadn't thought about it. But if
Speaker 2: you've ever said huh to somebody when you knew full
Speaker 2: well what they had just said, you were just reflexively
Speaker 2: trying to derail or disrupt that type of script in
Speaker 2: favor of a different one. Never realized that before, but
Speaker 2: it makes sense.
Speaker 1: Or maybe by time even, but it's just some sort
Speaker 1: of a disruptor to divert something for some reason. Sacks
Speaker 1: identified another thing called composits, and they're phrases that are
Speaker 1: kind of combined as a unit, and it usually is
Speaker 1: a prompt for some kind of response, Like if someone
Speaker 1: says may I help you like that on the telephone,
Speaker 1: what they're then obviously is asking you for a response.
Speaker 1: They'll let you know what's going on, and in the
Speaker 1: case of like an emergency call center, they might literally
Speaker 1: respond to may I help you by saying I don't know.
Speaker 1: And what they found was is it wasn't like like
Speaker 1: that was a reasonable response, like somebody might literally say like,
Speaker 1: I don't know if you can help me, and it
Speaker 1: needed to be sort of taking a face value like.
Speaker 2: That, right. What that suggested that Sex discovered was that
Speaker 2: there were these composites where if you're saying, man, I
Speaker 2: help you, you don't mean it at face value. It's
Speaker 2: a part of a I think what would be called
Speaker 2: later an adjacent pair, where you prompt, you say something
Speaker 2: that's a prompt and there's an expected like range of
Speaker 2: responses to it, and anything outside of that is like Okay,
Speaker 2: that makes sense on paper, but it doesn't make sense conversationally.
Speaker 2: And he kind of supported this with the idea he
Speaker 2: wrote in a nineteen seventy five paper that everybody has
Speaker 2: to lie yeah, And he used the example of like
Speaker 2: a greeting among people meeting on the street, where you say, like,
Speaker 2: how are you doing, and if the person says anything
Speaker 2: other than fine or great or good, they have just
Speaker 2: violated this type of composite prompt. You're not supposed to
Speaker 2: say anything else. And even more interesting than this, chuck
Speaker 2: is that they seem to have found that this is
Speaker 2: actually universal. It's not just like among Americans or English
Speaker 2: speakers or Germans or anything like that. Everybody essentially does
Speaker 2: not want to know how you're actually doing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I found that that's a very good indicator
Speaker 1: of closeness and how you know that you've developed a
Speaker 1: true like closeness with someone else, like a friendship or whatever,
Speaker 1: because that's much more of a formal thing. Even if
Speaker 1: you know somebody but don't know them that well, you'll
Speaker 1: say oh, like yeah, yeah, I'm doing fine. They're like, oh,
Speaker 1: pretty good. But if it's somebody you really know when
Speaker 1: you're close to, you don't have to lie. You can
Speaker 1: very easily say I'm super tired or I'm not doing
Speaker 1: great because xyz.
Speaker 2: Yeah. If you find somebody who actually does want to
Speaker 2: know how you're doing, you hang on to that.
Speaker 1: Person, right. Or if you meet someone up blue and
Speaker 1: say how you doing and they start in with the truth,
Speaker 1: then just walk.
Speaker 2: Away, right, maybe even jog away.
Speaker 1: Yeah, red flag.
Speaker 2: Uh So. One of the other big breakthroughs was came
Speaker 2: along when you could rent VCRs and they had giant
Speaker 2: recording equipment like the kind they used in poultry Geist.
Speaker 2: That changed conversation analysis, where now all of a sudden
Speaker 2: you could see all the stuff that goes along with it.
Speaker 2: It wasn't just telephone calls from disembodied voices. You could
Speaker 2: see how people interacted and it opened up this whole
Speaker 2: new world for sure.
Speaker 1: Should we take a break?
Speaker 2: I knew you were gonna say that.
Speaker 1: All right, we'll be right back.
Speaker 2: Stucks, It sucks, you know it stucks. It's a great name.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's the name of it.
Speaker 2: It's a great name. All right, Stucks met.
Speaker 1: With an X. You know, before we broke you talked
Speaker 1: about the huge cameras, and I'm reading Matthew Modine's diary
Speaker 1: of making a Full Metal Jacket, you know, the actor
Speaker 1: of Matthew Modine.
Speaker 2: Of course I know exactly what you're talking about. But
Speaker 2: number one, I can't believe there is such a thing.
Speaker 2: In number two, I can't believe you're reading it.
Speaker 1: Oh, it's great. It's his diary when he was making
Speaker 1: the movie. Casey actually got it for me when we
Speaker 1: were doing movie Crushes. Very sweet gift. But he at
Speaker 1: one point he was talking about having to put yourself
Speaker 1: on tape for an audition, which is something routinely done
Speaker 1: all the time now, especially since the writer strikes and
Speaker 1: COVID and stuff. But he was like, it's just such
Speaker 1: a pain. You got to know somebody who has one
Speaker 1: of those huge video cameras and you have to go
Speaker 1: to their studio and blah blah blah.
Speaker 2: It was just like it was very cute and quaint Yep,
Speaker 2: my niece Mila has to do that a lot.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Yeah, it's it's super It's kind of the way
Speaker 1: it's done now.
Speaker 2: For sure, sure, but yeah, I imagine it's it's I
Speaker 2: don't know which would be worse doing it live in
Speaker 2: front of people, are doing it in front of a
Speaker 2: recording that you're getting zero feedback from.
Speaker 1: The Every actor I knows hates putting themselves on tape.
Speaker 1: They would much rather be in the.
Speaker 2: Room, gotcha, because they're all energy vampires, right exactly. So
Speaker 2: one of the things I kind of alluded to earlier
Speaker 2: is that conversation analysis is not a standard social science,
Speaker 2: and that it doesn't develop theories of why people are
Speaker 2: doing these things or why you said this when somebody
Speaker 2: else said that. Again, they're just looking for patterns. They're
Speaker 2: looking at its structure. And the cool thing about it
Speaker 2: is that that doesn't mean that they're not deriving any meaning.
Speaker 2: They're not postulating what it means. Like for example, they're
Speaker 2: not going up to two listeners or two speakers and
Speaker 2: they go to speaker number two and say, what do
Speaker 2: you think speaker number one meant when they said how
Speaker 2: are you doing? They just analyze the conversation, and based
Speaker 2: on speaker two's response, that tells the conversation analysts what
Speaker 2: speaker number two thought speaker number one was saying. So
Speaker 2: just by examining it they can come up with meaning
Speaker 2: or derive meaning from it. And again, it's just not
Speaker 2: like other social sciences, and it seems to really stick
Speaker 2: in the craw of everybody else. I love it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they also didn't want to They wanted to be
Speaker 1: as organic as possible and just have people have naturally
Speaker 1: natural conversations with each other rather than orchestrating some big
Speaker 1: like scenarios. You do have to just because of scientific
Speaker 1: ethics and stuff, you have to tell people they're being recorded,
Speaker 1: so you can't truly be just a fly on the wall.
Speaker 1: But they did find that just the introduction of a
Speaker 1: recording device they didn't feel like and I think they've
Speaker 1: shown through evidence that it didn't really significantly change things
Speaker 1: enough to where the result was thrown out or whatever.
Speaker 2: Right, right, And like we said that, when you are
Speaker 2: beginning a conversation analysis, you start with a recording of
Speaker 2: a conversation. Nowadays it's with videotapes, and then you transcribe it.
Speaker 2: And one of the big things in conversation analysis is
Speaker 2: when you transcribe it, you need to do it as
Speaker 2: objectively as possible. You need to keep out your own
Speaker 2: subjective thoughts about who did what and just faithfully say
Speaker 2: this was an interruption, this was a TCU. This person
Speaker 2: took a break breath in the middle of their word.
Speaker 2: Josh just said he corrected himself in the middle of
Speaker 2: the sentence. So he just used the repair and notate
Speaker 2: all this stuff without any subjective input from you, and
Speaker 2: then you go back and you analyze it after it's
Speaker 2: been fully transcribed.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and so you've been very cleverly, i might say,
Speaker 1: subtly dropping in little little words here and there that
Speaker 1: people are like, what's he talking about with this stuff?
Speaker 1: That's the stuff that they're looking for, and that's the
Speaker 1: stuff that they named, like things that like in common parlance,
Speaker 1: we know some of these things like rejoinders and interruptions
Speaker 1: and things like that. But you know they're analysts, so
Speaker 1: they took it a step further. And here are some
Speaker 1: of those right now. One of them is called a
Speaker 1: turn constructional unit TCU obviously not Texas Christian University.
Speaker 2: There are frogs, horn toads, horn frogs. I think something
Speaker 2: like that, Yeah, chief and tree frogs.
Speaker 1: I think that's it. But turn construction units are the
Speaker 1: building blocks of any conversation, of every conversation. And it
Speaker 1: can be just a gesture like a nod at somebody,
Speaker 1: it can be multiple sentences, but they end up with
Speaker 1: what's called a transition relevance place a TRP, and that
Speaker 1: is a moment where like what you've said has ended
Speaker 1: and someone else may have a turn to speak now,
Speaker 1: or you may say something else after that, and that's
Speaker 1: just you taking another turn, basically and having two turn
Speaker 1: constructional units in a row.
Speaker 2: And so what just right after you said in a row,
Speaker 2: that's where the transition relevance place was. That was it
Speaker 2: because it gave me a chance to start talking, and
Speaker 2: everything you said leading up to it was the turn
Speaker 2: constructional unit. That was your turn. You took your turn
Speaker 2: in the conversation. There was a pause that allowed me
Speaker 2: to start taking my turn, And that's the basic building
Speaker 2: blocks of the conversation.
Speaker 1: That's right, Okay, see, you're good at this.
Speaker 2: There's also when I analyze it, sure, there's also like
Speaker 2: a lot of different I guess rules or exceptions or whatever.
Speaker 2: Like you could say, you could use two turns in
Speaker 2: a row without really allowing for a transition relevance, place
Speaker 2: that pause that allows the other speaker to start. For example,
Speaker 2: you could say, are you hungry? I could go for
Speaker 2: a burger. You actually just took two turns like a
Speaker 2: big fat hog without any pause in the middle. And
Speaker 2: yet that's not considered like any sort of violation of conversation.
Speaker 2: It's just again, it's like an exception. It's a way
Speaker 2: that we've kind of we're so good at conversation, we
Speaker 2: can show off by taking two turns in a row
Speaker 2: and not mess up the flow of conversation.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly if it's and we have to point out
Speaker 1: too that a lot of times they were looking at
Speaker 1: conversations between just two people, but you can also analyze
Speaker 1: conversations in groups. It's just sort of a different beast.
Speaker 1: But in conversations with more than two people at that
Speaker 1: transition relevance place where it's probably someone else's turn to talk.
Speaker 1: Like if you're a group of people at a dinner
Speaker 1: party and you're telling a story, it's very common to
Speaker 1: finish up the story and not just stare blankly into space.
Speaker 1: But you finish up the story and maybe look at
Speaker 1: one particular person, and there may be a reason for that.
Speaker 1: Maybe it's your person, or maybe it's the person you
Speaker 1: originally sort of started this story in reference to what
Speaker 1: this other person was saying, so you'll kind of turn
Speaker 1: it back to them. But you know, that's one way
Speaker 1: you can sort of indicate like, hey, now I'm looking
Speaker 1: at you, and that they may not speak at that point.
Speaker 1: It may, you know, someone else may jump in. It
Speaker 1: just sort of depends, right.
Speaker 2: You could also make a finger gun and go at
Speaker 2: that person and they and they'll take over. One of
Speaker 2: the things. I laughed a minute ago when you talked
Speaker 2: about staring blankly at the ceiling. It's so silly when
Speaker 2: you when you just you just take out like a
Speaker 2: proper response and put in something else. It just makes
Speaker 2: me laugh every time because it's so prescribed like this
Speaker 2: these scripts are so prescribed that doing anything other than
Speaker 2: that is is just absurd and hilarious.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, it's it's like hidden camera material.
Speaker 2: You know. So I mentioned I think I corrected myself.
Speaker 2: Actually it's considered an interruption when I misspoke and said
Speaker 2: breath weirdly and then set it again correctly right after
Speaker 2: I actually interrupted myself, and I referred to that as
Speaker 2: a repair mechanism. Yeah, that's exactly what it is, because
Speaker 2: one of the unsung parts of human interaction and conversation
Speaker 2: is that we have to have ways of correcting and
Speaker 2: adjusting misunderstandings. If we didn't, we would be able to converse,
Speaker 2: but two people would walk away from the conversation potentially
Speaker 2: with totally different understandings of the information that was just exchanged. Right,
Speaker 2: So we have to be able to correct ourselves when
Speaker 2: we know we made a mistake, and then also conversely,
Speaker 2: we need to be able to ask for clarification if
Speaker 2: we didn't understand what the person was saying.
Speaker 1: Yeah, or someone else may ask for that clarification or
Speaker 1: something like that. So the repair doesn't have to come.
Speaker 1: It's not necessarily a self repair always.
Speaker 2: Right, But it doesn't mean like going to the person
Speaker 2: and being like, I'm really sorry, and I'm not going
Speaker 2: to do this anymore, and here's how we're going to
Speaker 2: do it better from this point forward. Not that kind
Speaker 2: of repair.
Speaker 1: There are also gaps something to identify when they're analyzing conversations,
Speaker 1: and we all know what that is that I believe
Speaker 1: I always call them, and friends have called them awkward
Speaker 1: pauses when it's not clear who the next speaker gonna
Speaker 1: is going to be, and that can happen, like you
Speaker 1: know you can, and even with groups of close friends
Speaker 1: in a very social situation. In fact, I feel like
Speaker 1: that's when it's most sort of noticeable, is when like
Speaker 1: you're at a dinner party in something, and everyone's laughing
Speaker 1: and saying things, and then everyone just draws a blank
Speaker 1: for a couple of beats. Sure, and then someone will
Speaker 1: usually say like awkward pause or something like that and
Speaker 1: not say like that's a technically it's a conversation gap.
Speaker 2: That's I think a good a good replacement now because
Speaker 2: awkward pause is so used up to just be like
Speaker 2: conversation gap, so it can be uncomfortable when it happens naturally,
Speaker 2: naturally like that, like every everybody's just kind of run
Speaker 2: out of things to say about whatever that conversation was.
Speaker 2: It's even more uncomfortable when somebody misses their turn to speak, right,
Speaker 2: they don't clearly yes, well, they don't give any sort
Speaker 2: of response right. That is, that can cause a gap,
Speaker 2: and a lot of times you can signal that by
Speaker 2: like repeating the question you just asked, saying the punchline
Speaker 2: one more time, saying something like what do you think
Speaker 2: about that? A prompting thing, And then there's also nonverbal
Speaker 2: ways of signaling gaps, like putting both hands in the
Speaker 2: air and going into a forward lunch.
Speaker 1: Right. I've always found that if the joke doesn't go,
Speaker 1: we're just merely repeating the punchline again, always.
Speaker 2: Works exactly over and over and over again.
Speaker 1: You may not have heard me adjacent sea pairs. I
Speaker 1: think you might have mentioned that, But that's when when
Speaker 1: a specific kind of response is expected, so like how's
Speaker 1: it going, Hey, I'm doing pretty good. They're also a
Speaker 1: lot of times referred to as pre sequences, so just
Speaker 1: sort of like it's sort of like a pad answer almost.
Speaker 2: Yeah, like come in, won't you thank you? That'd be invitation, acceptance,
Speaker 2: greeting greeting question answer. There's actually a lot of those
Speaker 2: that those are the ones that are maybe even silliest
Speaker 2: when you replace it. Like if somebody says would you
Speaker 2: like a slice of cake? And you go hello, Right,
Speaker 2: it doesn't work.
Speaker 1: Well, what if you went hello, exactly.
Speaker 2: I was gonna say the same thing. Like, we've figured
Speaker 2: out ways around that. You can massage the rules and
Speaker 2: get even more creative with the whole thing. That you
Speaker 2: could use something that's totally inappropriate and make it appropriate.
Speaker 2: The best thing about something that funny is explaining it
Speaker 2: to death.
Speaker 1: All right, here you ask me for cake one more time?
Speaker 1: I got one more?
Speaker 2: Okay, would you like a slice of cake?
Speaker 1: Cok yourself?
Speaker 2: That works. It kind of works to an extent for sure.
Speaker 1: Stories is another one. When you mentioned the staring into
Speaker 1: space at the end of like a question to you,
Speaker 1: that can also happen at the end of a story
Speaker 1: if you don't know what you're doing as a as
Speaker 1: a communicator, when you start a story, you a lot
Speaker 1: of time give an indicator that you know that it's
Speaker 1: going to be you for a minute or two by
Speaker 1: saying something like didn't I ever tell you about or
Speaker 1: something like that, or get a sort of interest, Yeah,
Speaker 1: get a load of this, or I'll tell you what
Speaker 1: happened to me, And then you start your sort of story,
Speaker 1: and usually you will end it by kind of looking
Speaker 1: in someone's direction. And that's when you should sort of
Speaker 1: acknowledge by either saying like, oh man, that's so funny
Speaker 1: or just something like that, and not just stare blankly
Speaker 1: back at somebody.
Speaker 2: So I have I'm guilty of doing that, especially before
Speaker 2: I started treating my ADHD. My mind would wander very
Speaker 2: easily when somebody was telling a story, and I would
Speaker 2: know that I really miffed it when the person would
Speaker 2: look at me and then have to feel like they
Speaker 2: had to explain why I should be reacting more than
Speaker 2: I am. And then I'd be like, oh, yeah, that
Speaker 2: really sucks that that happened to you. It was not
Speaker 2: It doesn't really make for good interactions, really makes people
Speaker 2: want to stay away from you.
Speaker 1: Oh Josh, really dug that one?
Speaker 2: Huh right, like huh what? Because yeah, you don't say
Speaker 2: huh what. I wasn't paying attention. You try to play
Speaker 2: it off, and that actually makes it worse.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there are discourse markers, and they're just sort of words.
Speaker 1: Or phrases like like organizationally help out like oh, or because,
Speaker 1: and you're usually like connecting something to something that came
Speaker 1: before it, right.
Speaker 2: And then the last one is laminated action, which is
Speaker 2: when you combine it with a gesture that it doesn't
Speaker 2: just change the meaning, it actually completes the meaning. Yeah,
Speaker 2: Olivia gave an example of when you say, oh, yeah,
Speaker 2: I've met him and you roll your eyes. Right, if
Speaker 2: you just say oh yeah, i've met him, even that
Speaker 2: same intonation, it doesn't tell the person what you actually
Speaker 2: think about them. You roll your eyes, then they get
Speaker 2: the whole picture. You've met them, you've judged them, you
Speaker 2: can't stand them, you wish they were dead, dead dead.
Speaker 1: Yeah, role can sail those things exactly?
Speaker 2: Should we take another break now or keep going?
Speaker 1: Let's talk about overlap maybe and then we can take
Speaker 1: a break. That feel about it? The idea, So overlap
Speaker 1: is a really really like I feel like conversation analysts
Speaker 1: just sort of light up whenever there's an overlap that
Speaker 1: they can witness. They get pretty turned on by that
Speaker 1: kind of thing. One common form is just like just
Speaker 1: a simple misunderstanding, like I didn't know that your turn
Speaker 1: was over I'm sorry. It's not the same thing as interruption.
Speaker 1: Those are two different things. But interruption is like when
Speaker 1: you stop in the middle of like stop somebody in
Speaker 1: the middle of their sentence and talk over them. And
Speaker 1: overlap is just when someone stops talking and had something
Speaker 1: else to say, maybe and you start on your own train.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's the thing I think I do the most
Speaker 2: to you. I think you've done and then I keep
Speaker 2: talking or I start talking. That is Yeah, that's just
Speaker 2: up interruption. Unintentional. There is such thing as intentional interruption,
Speaker 2: where somebody's trying to like gain control or dominate a conversation. Yeah,
Speaker 2: aka total jerks.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: There's also a different kind of interruption, which is a
Speaker 2: cooperative interruption. Like when I say right to you while
Speaker 2: you're telling a story, I'm actually interjecting it while you're
Speaker 2: still using your turn. You're you're making a turn construction unit,
Speaker 2: uh huh unit. But I'm helping you along at the
Speaker 2: very least demonstrating I'm listening and participating in the conversation,
Speaker 2: which makes it cooperative.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and those are just fine. You can interrupt people
Speaker 1: all the time in the middle of their story and
Speaker 1: even add to it if you're if you can, like
Speaker 1: maybe you'll interrupt and say, like if somebody who's telling
Speaker 1: a story about driving their car, you know, it's like,
Speaker 1: you know it was a guy, Well kind of car
Speaker 1: was you driving? And they'll say, oh, a BMW And
Speaker 1: then everyone's like yeah, and they may have left out
Speaker 1: that details. So that's all just sort of active participation
Speaker 1: in the conversation precisely.
Speaker 2: We're also no.
Speaker 1: Shade toward BMW drivers. By the way, I'm not sure
Speaker 1: why I set that car.
Speaker 2: We're also so good at this whole thing that we
Speaker 2: can interrupt while someone's telling a story without taking away
Speaker 2: from the story. For example, if you're sitting there having
Speaker 2: dinner with somebody and they're telling a story and you say, hey,
Speaker 2: pass the potatoes, right, it doesn't actually like derail the conversation,
Speaker 2: and the person's not offended. Yeah, you're just you're just
Speaker 2: fitting that in there so you can eat the potatoes
Speaker 2: and enjoy them while you're hearing the story too.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and that's that can happen even I mean, dinner
Speaker 1: party is such a good sort of experiment because it's
Speaker 1: everyone seated around and looking at each other, and all
Speaker 1: these conversations are happening that you can even do that
Speaker 1: to someone else at the table during someone's story if
Speaker 1: the potatoes are closer, but you might do it in
Speaker 1: a hush tone, like during the middle of their story, Hey,
Speaker 1: can you pass potatoes? Yeah, And that person may even
Speaker 1: go they're so good, so like something like that.
Speaker 2: What kind of potatoes did you imagine when I said
Speaker 2: pass the potatoes up?
Speaker 1: Mashed?
Speaker 2: Did you? I? I, for some reason thought of steamed
Speaker 2: or baked red potatoes, and then I was like, those
Speaker 2: are no good, So I changed it to scallop potatoes,
Speaker 2: which are great.
Speaker 1: Oh man, you ever think everything, don't you?
Speaker 2: I totally do. And then I thought about human makes
Speaker 2: really good scallop potatoes. It just kind of kept going
Speaker 2: from there.
Speaker 1: I wonder what Chuck's talking about right now exactly?
Speaker 2: No, I was listening to. That is a bit of
Speaker 2: a talent. I can listen and do that at the
Speaker 2: same time.
Speaker 1: Okay, what exactly? I think? This is kind of really interesting.
Speaker 1: There's a Georgetown University linguist named Deborah Tannan who did
Speaker 1: a fun little experiment where she transcribed conversations between two Californians,
Speaker 1: three New Yorkers, and a Londoner. And this should come
Speaker 1: as no surprise. New Yorkers talked over everybody. And when
Speaker 1: they did it with the fellow New Yorker, the other
Speaker 1: New Yorker just kept talking, and they were sort of
Speaker 1: talking over each other, and they were still enthusiastic and
Speaker 1: having a good time. But when a New Yorker talked
Speaker 1: over a Californian or a Londoner, they would stop talking
Speaker 1: other people, you know. When they went back and looked
Speaker 1: at it, others viewed it as like these New Yorkers
Speaker 1: are dominating the conversation. They just want to take over.
Speaker 1: Anytime I said anything, the New Yorkers were just like, hey,
Speaker 1: it's all good. This is what we do. And they
Speaker 1: found that as far as New Yorkers, and the New
Speaker 1: Yorkers also thought that, like no one joined in, like
Speaker 1: when they stopped talking, they were like, well, I guess
Speaker 1: they didn't want to talk or whatever, because they're not
Speaker 1: interrupting me right exactly. But they did find that other
Speaker 1: scholars have found that there are these New York like
Speaker 1: patterns and other cultures Samoan, Japanese and Italian American. And
Speaker 1: so that's why every Italian American New York family. All
Speaker 1: they do is just sit around and scream over each
Speaker 1: other all the time.
Speaker 2: Right, Hey, Japanese stood out to me and I'm like,
Speaker 2: that doesn't sound right, And then I thought of have
Speaker 2: you ever seen a Japanese like Morning Talk?
Speaker 1: Oh? Sure? Yeah.
Speaker 2: So the the somebody like a guest or some other
Speaker 2: anchor something will be talking and then one of the
Speaker 2: hosts will interject, usually a question before the person is
Speaker 2: finished talking, and the person stops saying what they were
Speaker 2: saying and answers that question and adjusts without being offended
Speaker 2: at all. So it actually happens quite a bit, and
Speaker 2: usually toward the end of a sentence or a story
Speaker 2: or something like that. But it does happen a lot.
Speaker 2: Whereas American English speakers, you are done speaking, then the
Speaker 2: person starts speaking, or else you have transgressed on that
Speaker 2: person's turn for sure.
Speaker 1: Should we take a break? Yeah, all right, we'll take
Speaker 1: a break and finish up right after this.
Speaker 2: Stucks Who Stucks?
Speaker 1: You know it? Stucks.
Speaker 2: It's a great name.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's the name of it.
Speaker 2: It's a great name.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 2: Stucks met with an X so we talked about how
Speaker 2: like all of these are scripts or templates like there's
Speaker 2: you say something and there's a predictable response, and there's
Speaker 2: actually you can boil it down to what are called families.
Speaker 2: So like different types of conversations fall into different kinds
Speaker 2: of families. The big ones that we've seen are reconstruction, moralizing,
Speaker 2: and projection. Right. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Reconstruction you know obviously reconstructing or remembering and sharing something
Speaker 1: about an event with somebody. The projective is looking to
Speaker 1: the future. Yeah, it could be very specific like where
Speaker 1: we going to dinner, or just more like sitting around
Speaker 1: and chatting out loud about like the real future. And
Speaker 1: then what was moral communication about good and good and bad?
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's more about tearing people down or complimenting people,
Speaker 2: and we are we tend way more toward negativity, tearing
Speaker 2: people down rather than building people up, and are tearing
Speaker 2: people down types of genres are way more intricate and
Speaker 2: sophisticated than are building people up or complimenting. Because we
Speaker 2: have a negative bias as a species.
Speaker 1: That's depressing.
Speaker 2: So we'll I'll grow it one day, just give us
Speaker 2: several tens of thousands of years.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So at the beginning we kind of talked to
Speaker 1: I think we gave an example of how this might
Speaker 1: be used, like on the job or something, and sort
Speaker 1: of practical applications do involve that, for sure, Like you
Speaker 1: might be hired by a company to come in and
Speaker 1: consult when that company does like has kind of the
Speaker 1: same kind of conversation over and over with people, like
Speaker 1: if it's a surgical team or a call center. For sure,
Speaker 1: whenever you hear this call may be recorded for training
Speaker 1: and evaluation purposes, that that's probably what they're doing right there,
Speaker 1: or maybe just judging their own employees and how they're
Speaker 1: doing on the job.
Speaker 2: Right for sure. They've also found you can help people
Speaker 2: get certain types of responses that you're looking for, Like
Speaker 2: we talked about the emergency psychiatric hospital where they wanted
Speaker 2: to get the person's name and then trick them into it.
Speaker 2: There was a guy named John Heritage, unsurprisingly from UCLA,
Speaker 2: who worked with doctors to figure out how they could
Speaker 2: get patients to volunteer more problems that they needed help with.
Speaker 2: And they found that doctors who say, is there anything
Speaker 2: else that you need help with today? Apparently anything triggers
Speaker 2: a response a predictable response, which is no. But if
Speaker 2: you change anything to something that for some reason that
Speaker 2: particular script or template opens up the possibility of sharing
Speaker 2: more information and you would just never figure that out.
Speaker 2: And this is one of the sterling examples of how
Speaker 2: conversation and let's like actually help things change for the better.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that was well said.
Speaker 2: Thank you, wait to go John heritage at all.
Speaker 1: A woman named Elizabeth Stoko of the London School of
Speaker 1: Economics and Political Science found this when she studied conversations
Speaker 1: in a mediation service that people. It seems like in
Speaker 1: this case, people just kind of wanted to get down
Speaker 1: to brass tacks on what actually they did. They didn't
Speaker 1: want to hear things like well we don't take sides
Speaker 1: here and we don't judge. They really wanted to hear
Speaker 1: just sort of the step by step process of mediation
Speaker 1: and how it worked.
Speaker 2: Yes, she also works with companies that are trying to
Speaker 2: install customer service bots and I was reading about that
Speaker 2: it's not going very well yet. People hate customer service
Speaker 2: bots and there's a there's agree. Yeah, I'm one of
Speaker 2: them too. There's a question of okay, is the solution
Speaker 2: making these bots way more human? Like should we insert
Speaker 2: things like have a box or you know, like waffle
Speaker 2: like a human does, and from what I saw, the
Speaker 2: consensus is no, don't do that. Bots should be recognizable
Speaker 2: and volunteer themselves as bots humans are humans. Keep the
Speaker 2: two separate. And I don't know which direction it's going.
Speaker 2: It does kind of seem like the whole thing's in
Speaker 2: the quagmire currently. But I also did see that bots
Speaker 2: are poised to start taking over the reins from human
Speaker 2: conversation analysts and doing it themselves, and then training bots
Speaker 2: how to be better at their job. So one bot
Speaker 2: training another bot, right, that's from what I can tell
Speaker 2: the future of conversation analysis.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean with the movie Her that now is
Speaker 1: like kind of freakily ahead of its time with Scarlett Johansson.
Speaker 1: I think in that situation, they definitely wanted to make
Speaker 1: her way more human and do things like stumble words
Speaker 1: and make mistakes. But if it's something like a customer
Speaker 1: service spot right, you don't want that. I don't want
Speaker 1: it at all. But I definitely don't want one that's
Speaker 1: like I just give Starn't.
Speaker 2: I cute exactly? Lol. So let's get down to it, though, Chuck.
Speaker 2: Here's the real reason we started talking about this. Do
Speaker 2: men interrupt women as much as people think.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, this has been something that they've studied
Speaker 1: a lot since the seventies about you know, the roles
Speaker 1: that plays, and it's been mixed results. There have been
Speaker 1: studies that found that men interrupt women much more. There's
Speaker 1: some that found there's not much of a difference. There
Speaker 1: was a meta analysis from ninety eight that found that
Speaker 1: ginger divide becomes more clearcut when looking at intrusive, specifically
Speaker 1: intrusive interruptions as to cooperative interruptions. And that's kind of
Speaker 1: what I took away is that it seems like when
Speaker 1: men are interrupting, it is definitely more intrusive maybe mansplaining, sure,
Speaker 1: I don't know, yah, and interrupt maybe just as often,
Speaker 1: but it's much more of the cooperative type, right.
Speaker 2: And they chalk this up to different kinds of upbringings
Speaker 2: where girls who become women are raised to essentially socialized
Speaker 2: through communication, through conversation, so they become masters at it,
Speaker 2: but they also develop expectations that men don't necessarily fulfill,
Speaker 2: like cooperative interruptions, like oh, that's right, you don't say.
Speaker 2: If a man doesn't do that, the women might feel
Speaker 2: like she's not being listened to and Conversely, boys are
Speaker 2: raised in a hierarchical manner where they might eventually come
Speaker 2: to see listening as a form of submission, where instead
Speaker 2: they're trying to dominate. They want to be the alpha male,
Speaker 2: they want their puffy vest to be the coolest at
Speaker 2: their kids football game, and so not only are they
Speaker 2: not going to cooperatively interrupt, they're not even gonna listen,
Speaker 2: and they may interrupt competitively too. So there's a lot
Speaker 2: of at least anecdotal data to back that up for sure.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I think they also found that menton are
Speaker 1: interrupt more in groups than a one on one, and
Speaker 1: that definitely seems to fall in line with, like, you know,
Speaker 1: trying to establish the power position and like if you're
Speaker 1: working together in a group. They did also find another
Speaker 1: interesting correlation where in studies where the first author of
Speaker 1: the study was a woman, they found bigger differences, and
Speaker 1: that just could be that the male and female researchers
Speaker 1: are coding the interruptions in a different way. Pretty interesting,
Speaker 1: I thought, so too. What about generationally, Well.
Speaker 2: So apparently gen Z is just throwing a huge wrench
Speaker 2: in the works. Remember we talked about how at the hospital,
Speaker 2: the emergency hospital when somebody called and they said, my
Speaker 2: name is May I help you? Right, the other person
Speaker 2: felt obligated to give their name. It's not true like
Speaker 2: when we were growing up, you would not feel like
Speaker 2: you had to say, oh, well, I'm Josh Clark and
Speaker 2: here's what I need from you. You just say, hey,
Speaker 2: I need this or whatever. That's an example of a
Speaker 2: generational change that took place. Now it's even more pronounced.
Speaker 2: Apparently with gen Z there's something called the gen Z
Speaker 2: stare where they're essentially pulling a Josh where you can
Speaker 2: tell them a story and they just stare back at
Speaker 2: you blankly at the end when it's their turn. And
Speaker 2: apparently it's fairly disconcerting.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I've heard about it and then I was like,
Speaker 1: what is that? Then I read up about it and
Speaker 1: it is very disconcerting, as is the phone call thing,
Speaker 1: which I haven't experienced because people don't call each other
Speaker 1: much anymore. Yeah, but apparently gen Z when they answer
Speaker 1: a phone, they don't go hello, They expect the other
Speaker 1: person to talk for so apparently there's a gen Z
Speaker 1: thing where they just answer the phone like this.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and then the other hello, or do you need help?
Speaker 2: That's what I would say.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I mean, I guess I've definitely witnessed the
Speaker 1: gen z stare with our friends' kids here and there
Speaker 1: to where you're just like, boy, I just like I
Speaker 1: must be the least interesting human on earth because they're
Speaker 1: just blankly looking at me.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah. Or you can look at it the other
Speaker 2: way and be like, yeah, good talking to you. I'll
Speaker 2: see you later.
Speaker 1: Yeah. But I've also found, especially when you're around teenagers,
Speaker 1: like your friends that have teenage kids, like just don't
Speaker 1: even you know, maybe say something nice and hello, but
Speaker 1: don't try to strike up a conversation. They don't want
Speaker 1: to talk to you. No, just don't, I think, just
Speaker 1: move along.
Speaker 2: That's been true since Tuck Tuck was a teenager, you
Speaker 2: know what I mean.
Speaker 1: You know what I usually do. I'll go like, Ye're like, oh, hey,
Speaker 1: how's it going. How's school going this year? Oh? Good, good,
Speaker 1: glad to hear it, and I'll just walk away like
Speaker 1: a nice thing to say, and then just end it.
Speaker 2: You don't follow up with like, are you really anxious
Speaker 2: when you wake up in the morning before school?
Speaker 1: No, no, no, no one wants to hear from an adult.
Speaker 1: If you're at a certain age.
Speaker 2: Okay, I'm going to have to rethink my approach. Then.
Speaker 1: Do you remember when you were a kid like I
Speaker 1: don't remember even having conversations with adults?
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, no, absolutely not. You know, I'm totally kidding
Speaker 2: this in everything I'm saying, right, Oh yeah, yeah, no,
Speaker 2: I remember that it was very intimidating to talk to
Speaker 2: an adult, let alone having very little in common.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and they didn't want to talk to us.
Speaker 2: No, No, for sure.
Speaker 1: Gen X was famously ignored by most adults.
Speaker 2: Yeah, very famous. Just ask Douglas Copelan.
Speaker 1: Who's that.
Speaker 2: He's the guy who wrote gen X.
Speaker 1: Oh? Okay, was that a book? Famous book?
Speaker 2: Yes? I believe he's the one who coined the term.
Speaker 1: Oh you should read it.
Speaker 2: It's good. It's a quick read. It's not like an
Speaker 2: essay or anything like that. It's his story about three
Speaker 2: gen xers and just going through life over I think,
Speaker 2: just the course of a few days.
Speaker 1: I've been a reading fool lately. I'll put it on
Speaker 1: the list.
Speaker 2: Nice. I just started in, and I'll bet I regret
Speaker 2: ever announcing it publicly.
Speaker 1: Because that David Foster Waller.
Speaker 2: Yes, and I love that guy. But this is a
Speaker 2: slog already.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm finishing. I just finished the bonobook that I
Speaker 1: had put down like a year ago, and I am
Speaker 1: almost done with the Don Felder of the Eagles. Good lord.
Speaker 1: You might be asking why would you read that? It's
Speaker 1: specifically because I used to love the Eagles and he
Speaker 1: apparently the book was just really bitchy.
Speaker 2: Oh okay, yeah, I could say.
Speaker 1: I was like, Ooh, I want to read this because
Speaker 1: he's like, he hates those guys, so let me read this.
Speaker 2: Did Matthew Modine recommend you read it in his diary
Speaker 2: about Full Metal Jacket?
Speaker 1: No, that's my bathroom book. So I've just been slow
Speaker 1: rolling that one.
Speaker 2: Gotcha. I don't think you should use words like slow
Speaker 2: rolling when you talk about being in the bathroom.
Speaker 1: Good point.
Speaker 2: Well, I think we just brought about listener mail, whether
Speaker 2: we like it or not, don't you.
Speaker 1: That's right. This is not a really correction, just sort
Speaker 1: of maybe a gentle reminder about our history of orthodonture.
Speaker 1: I feel like we might have focused a little too
Speaker 1: much on appearance this from erin. Hey, guys, appreciate the
Speaker 1: depth of curiosity you bring to each topic, and I
Speaker 1: wanted to offer an update regarding orthodontia, it's not just
Speaker 1: about appearance anymore. The field has evolved significantly in current
Speaker 1: research shows that strong connection between jaw and bite alignment
Speaker 1: and conditions like sleep, apnea, ADHD, and TMJ dysfunction, which
Speaker 1: is of course totally true. While some of these links
Speaker 1: were suspected years ago, orthodonic treatment today is increasingly focused
Speaker 1: on preventing or mitigating these issues and the ute before
Speaker 1: they become chronic. On a personal note, my journey with
Speaker 1: TMJ dysfunction led me down the path of exploring treatment options,
Speaker 1: and after years of discomfort, I found relief through invisil line.
Speaker 1: It not only helped with my smile, realign my bite
Speaker 1: and significantly reduce my TMJ symptoms and open my eyes
Speaker 1: to the broader health benefits of orthodonic care. And that
Speaker 1: is warm regards from Aaron. Very nice email Aaron, and
Speaker 1: visit right.
Speaker 2: Yeah exactly, thanks a lot, Erin. I'm really glad Erin
Speaker 2: with an E or a double A or one that's
Speaker 2: E R I N. Thanks a lot, Aaron. I'm glad
Speaker 2: that you were able to take care of your TMJ.
Speaker 2: I can't imagine that that's a fun chronic condition. You know,
Speaker 2: if you got rid of a condition that you're happy about,
Speaker 2: we want to hear about that, or for whatever reason
Speaker 2: you want to write in. You can send us an
Speaker 2: email send it off to stuff podcast at iHeartRadio dot com.
Speaker 1: Stuff you Should Know is a production of iHeartRadio. For
Speaker 1: more podcasts my heart Radio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
Speaker 1: or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.