WEBVTT - You’re So Good At Conversation! 0:00:01.360 --> 0:00:07.680 Welcome to stuff you should know, a production of iHeartRadio. 0:00:11.119 --> 0:00:13.800 Hey, and welcome to the podcast. I'm Josh, and there's Chuck. 0:00:13.880 --> 0:00:17.120 I'm Chucky already. 0:00:18.280 --> 0:00:21.119 You know, you know I thought a moose apropos. 0:00:25.160 --> 0:00:30.280 Oh it's my turn to talk. Yeah, oh, well played. 0:00:30.600 --> 0:00:32.800 I'm not very good at this. As you know, if 0:00:32.840 --> 0:00:35.479 you have ever listened to the podcast, and I know 0:00:35.560 --> 0:00:38.199 you have because you're one of the co hosts, you 0:00:38.280 --> 0:00:42.200 know that I step on you a lot. Now, yep, 0:00:42.520 --> 0:00:46.440 I'll keep going with my turn constructional unit. Then how 0:00:46.520 --> 0:00:48.400 confused are people? Do you think right now? 0:00:49.320 --> 0:00:52.440 I don't know, probably very I mean we should say 0:00:52.440 --> 0:00:55.120 this is all just a bit to sort of demonstrate 0:00:55.880 --> 0:01:01.360 a conversational analysis. Yeah, well thatword demonst the analysis. If 0:01:01.360 --> 0:01:04.000 someone was sitting in another room making notes about how 0:01:04.080 --> 0:01:06.800 we were talking like a creep, Yeah, that would be 0:01:06.800 --> 0:01:12.600 a conversational analysis. We were just demonstrating poor communication pretty much. 0:01:13.000 --> 0:01:15.759 But it would be a bonanza for a conversation analyst 0:01:15.959 --> 0:01:19.360 a CAA as they like to call themselves. This is 0:01:19.360 --> 0:01:23.520 a super super niche field of science. I guess it 0:01:23.520 --> 0:01:26.600 would be a social science because it branched off from sociology, 0:01:27.480 --> 0:01:30.199 but one of the things that I've noticed about it 0:01:30.240 --> 0:01:33.520 is that people like to try to push it into 0:01:34.200 --> 0:01:37.120 a typical social science, right, like come up with some 0:01:37.200 --> 0:01:39.640 theories like why do people do these things that you 0:01:39.680 --> 0:01:44.200 guys are studying, and conversation analysis says, no, we're not 0:01:44.280 --> 0:01:47.960 going to do that. Instead, we are purely about observation, 0:01:48.640 --> 0:01:52.200 noticing patterns and then figuring out how those patterns predict 0:01:52.280 --> 0:01:55.280 other patterns, and how all these different patterns fit together 0:01:55.600 --> 0:02:00.360 in this grand way to make up conversation. And you 0:02:00.440 --> 0:02:02.600 might say, well, that's pretty boring, wouldn't you, Chuck. 0:02:04.320 --> 0:02:05.800 I mean, I'll let you finish and then I'll give 0:02:05.840 --> 0:02:06.240 you my take. 0:02:06.440 --> 0:02:10.320 Okay, you might say it's pretty boring if you were Chuck. 0:02:11.040 --> 0:02:14.040 The reason why it's interesting is because it reveals something 0:02:14.080 --> 0:02:16.480 about us that conversation is one of those things that 0:02:16.480 --> 0:02:21.200 we're really really good at without realizing what we're doing. 0:02:21.760 --> 0:02:25.440 That conversation is an amazing interaction between two or more 0:02:25.480 --> 0:02:29.400 people that gets stuff done, that shares information that you 0:02:29.440 --> 0:02:33.800 can make a case basically our entire human civilization is 0:02:33.840 --> 0:02:36.160 based on the fact that we're able to converse pretty 0:02:36.200 --> 0:02:38.760 much effortlessly, even though in a lot of times it 0:02:38.919 --> 0:02:40.040 just does not make sense. 0:02:40.960 --> 0:02:44.680 Yeah, my deal with this is I'll get to this 0:02:44.760 --> 0:02:47.360 episode and then I want to wipe it from my 0:02:47.440 --> 0:02:51.280 memory bank because I'm one of those people that the 0:02:51.400 --> 0:02:55.799 last thing I want to think about is how I'm 0:02:55.800 --> 0:02:58.960 conversing with somebody. And it reminds me that that scene 0:02:58.960 --> 0:03:02.600 in Better Off Dead, when early on John Cusack is 0:03:02.639 --> 0:03:05.640 having like his early A flashback, I think to his 0:03:05.919 --> 0:03:09.120 first meeting with his girlfriend and whether they're in his 0:03:09.240 --> 0:03:11.080 head and he's like, Oh, she just touched her nose. 0:03:11.639 --> 0:03:13.600 Does that mean I have something on my face? And 0:03:13.639 --> 0:03:15.680 then she's like, oh, he just touched his face, Do 0:03:15.800 --> 0:03:18.040 I mustard on my face or something like that? And 0:03:18.080 --> 0:03:20.320 then before you know it, they're just going crazy. And 0:03:20.320 --> 0:03:22.880 that's kind of what this does to me, is I 0:03:22.919 --> 0:03:27.320 don't want to think about Like I'm very much organic 0:03:27.320 --> 0:03:29.480 when it comes to stuff like this, and the last 0:03:29.520 --> 0:03:32.839 thing I want to think about is did I say 0:03:32.880 --> 0:03:35.200 that right? Or did I interrupt somebody? Or was I 0:03:35.200 --> 0:03:37.880 did I act interested enough? Like that kind of thing? 0:03:38.200 --> 0:03:40.280 Just I have no place for that in my life. 0:03:40.840 --> 0:03:43.920 That's funny because that is almost one hundred percent of 0:03:43.960 --> 0:03:46.800 what goes on in my mind when I'm talking or 0:03:46.840 --> 0:03:49.080 when someone else is talking like, I can't help but 0:03:49.160 --> 0:03:49.480 do that. 0:03:50.000 --> 0:03:53.200 I know, and I know that, and I feel for 0:03:53.240 --> 0:03:55.680 you for that because that can't be fun. 0:03:55.920 --> 0:04:01.600 It's really tiring. So Okay, this is like potentially a 0:04:01.760 --> 0:04:04.920 career ending raphic pick that I made. 0:04:05.000 --> 0:04:08.520 Hunt no, no, no, no, no. I just you know, it's interesting, 0:04:08.600 --> 0:04:10.240 and then I just don't want to ever think about it. 0:04:10.320 --> 0:04:12.200 Okay, we'll do a good job doing that, and I'm 0:04:12.200 --> 0:04:15.120 sorry for even picking it. Well, let's dive into all 0:04:15.160 --> 0:04:17.520 of this because it is interesting in and of itself, 0:04:17.560 --> 0:04:20.200 even though it is a really strange discipline in the 0:04:20.200 --> 0:04:21.240 way that it's set up. 0:04:21.839 --> 0:04:25.560 Yeah, it draws from a couple of fields. Primarily Libya 0:04:25.640 --> 0:04:28.159 helped us with this one, and I can tell because 0:04:28.160 --> 0:04:34.520 it's awesome. Ethn No methodology, and that is it's studying 0:04:34.520 --> 0:04:36.960 how people not just how they make sense of the world, 0:04:37.040 --> 0:04:39.240 but how they do it in relation to others and 0:04:39.240 --> 0:04:40.440 how they collaborate with others. 0:04:40.680 --> 0:04:40.920 Right. 0:04:41.520 --> 0:04:46.400 And then socio linguistics, which is language but not just language, 0:04:46.520 --> 0:04:50.799 language specifically with like how it relates in specific cultures, 0:04:50.800 --> 0:04:53.720 in the context of different cultures. And there were three 0:04:54.040 --> 0:04:59.560 key players and researchers doing this in the nineteen seventies, 0:04:59.560 --> 0:05:04.760 mainly Yeah, at UCLA go bruins. The persone is a 0:05:04.800 --> 0:05:08.680 sociologist named Harvey Sachs, and he seems to have kind 0:05:08.680 --> 0:05:12.280 of been the ringleader here. He's the grand Pappy of 0:05:12.400 --> 0:05:16.520 conversation analysis. He started at UCLA in the sixties, that 0:05:16.600 --> 0:05:18.640 really got into this in the mid seventies. 0:05:19.760 --> 0:05:22.040 Yeah, and he stopped in the seventies because the poor 0:05:22.040 --> 0:05:24.240 guy died in a car crash at forty years old 0:05:24.279 --> 0:05:27.520 in nineteen seventy five. And he really only worked on 0:05:27.560 --> 0:05:30.760 this for just over a decade, but he figured it out. 0:05:30.800 --> 0:05:34.240 He laid this down, and part of it was that 0:05:34.320 --> 0:05:38.800 he benefited from working closely with some other sociologists, including 0:05:38.800 --> 0:05:43.400 Irvin Goffman, who was the star of our impression Management episode. 0:05:43.960 --> 0:05:45.640 And I think that might have been where I first 0:05:45.680 --> 0:05:49.560 heard of conversation in alliance. And then so he was 0:05:49.600 --> 0:05:52.960 working with IRVN. Goffman. They weren't doing the same thing, 0:05:53.000 --> 0:05:56.120 but they were both coming from that same strain of sociology, 0:05:56.160 --> 0:05:59.560 which is it was really transitional at a time from 0:05:59.600 --> 0:06:04.440 studying huge institutions like religion or government and zooming into 0:06:04.480 --> 0:06:08.400 a much more granular, almost micro interaction level. So that's 0:06:08.400 --> 0:06:11.520 what Goffman was into with impression management. Harvey Sachs was 0:06:11.520 --> 0:06:12.680 into that with conversation. 0:06:13.440 --> 0:06:16.320 Yeah, he didn't publish a lot of stuff. This wasn't 0:06:16.400 --> 0:06:19.240 like white paper, peer reviewed kind of stuff. That was 0:06:19.279 --> 0:06:22.160 mainly like, you know, sort of pre ted talk kind 0:06:22.200 --> 0:06:26.040 of thing like, Hey, isn't this interesting. Here's my lectures. 0:06:26.080 --> 0:06:27.960 I'm going to make them available. You can take a 0:06:28.000 --> 0:06:31.159 gander if you want. Right then, there was a student 0:06:31.360 --> 0:06:34.400 of SAS named Gail Jefferson there at ECLA who was 0:06:34.440 --> 0:06:37.800 a dance major but had this interesting job. She worked 0:06:37.800 --> 0:06:39.880 as a typist for the Department of Public Health, and 0:06:40.120 --> 0:06:45.120 part of that included transcribing sensitivity training sessions with prison guards, 0:06:46.000 --> 0:06:49.920 and so she got really interested in a very kind 0:06:49.920 --> 0:06:52.560 of key part of conversation with something called turntaking, when 0:06:52.600 --> 0:06:55.200 you you know, take turns talking and a lot of 0:06:55.200 --> 0:06:58.080 this will be about like the cues that people give 0:06:58.200 --> 0:07:00.200 to let the other person know, hey, now it's your 0:07:00.200 --> 0:07:05.200 turn to speak, or how to interject constructively or interrupt constructively, 0:07:05.240 --> 0:07:07.760 things like that. But that seemed to kind of fascinate 0:07:07.800 --> 0:07:11.360 her when she was transcribing these training sessions with the 0:07:11.360 --> 0:07:15.800 prison guards, and so she got interested in that. She 0:07:16.120 --> 0:07:20.880 ended up developing a whole system called the Jefferson transcription System, 0:07:21.160 --> 0:07:23.000 which you're going to talk about a little bit, basically, 0:07:23.080 --> 0:07:25.280 how to kind of make sense of all this stuff 0:07:26.120 --> 0:07:29.880 when you're writing down how people are speaking to one 0:07:29.880 --> 0:07:32.800 another and then later on it's kind of interesting. I 0:07:32.800 --> 0:07:36.920 think she worked with laughter. She was fascinated by laughter 0:07:37.200 --> 0:07:40.200 and how that works us way into a conversation and 0:07:40.200 --> 0:07:44.000 how someone may cue someone to laugh at something they've 0:07:44.000 --> 0:07:47.280 even said themselves by giving a small laugh after they've 0:07:47.360 --> 0:07:47.920 said that thing. 0:07:48.120 --> 0:07:55.480 Yeah. The third guy is Emmanual Sheglof, and he seems 0:07:55.520 --> 0:07:58.520 to have kind of taken the reins after Harvey Sachs 0:07:58.560 --> 0:08:01.840 passed away, that's my stake. He became the chair of 0:08:01.880 --> 0:08:06.080 the Conversation Analysis Department at UCLA, which seems to be 0:08:06.480 --> 0:08:09.880 the center of conversation analysis from what I can tell. 0:08:10.760 --> 0:08:13.600 He also received a Lifetime Achievement Award from the American 0:08:13.680 --> 0:08:17.320 Sociological Association in twenty ten. So he was a big 0:08:17.360 --> 0:08:18.720 man on campus essentially. 0:08:19.760 --> 0:08:21.920 Yeah, he was a big brewin on campus. But he 0:08:22.520 --> 0:08:25.760 they kind of started out and got, you know, with 0:08:26.080 --> 0:08:28.120 kind of the simpler side of things, which is like, hey, 0:08:28.200 --> 0:08:32.640 let's look at telephone calls and just sort of everyday 0:08:32.679 --> 0:08:36.439 interactions with people, like what do people say at the 0:08:36.480 --> 0:08:38.360 beginning of a phone call? What do people say at 0:08:38.400 --> 0:08:40.840 the end of a phone call? And this is sort 0:08:40.840 --> 0:08:44.520 of the bird's eye view of like just very basic 0:08:44.559 --> 0:08:49.360 interactions before they got more specific with their observations, I guess. 0:08:49.720 --> 0:08:52.520 Yeah. But also one of the genius things about studying 0:08:52.559 --> 0:08:56.160 phone calls is how do two people who aren't looking 0:08:56.200 --> 0:08:58.560 at each other know when it's their turn to talk? 0:08:58.920 --> 0:09:01.560 And they don't just exactly and they don't just sit 0:09:01.600 --> 0:09:03.960 there and talk over one another constantly and it's just 0:09:04.000 --> 0:09:06.959 one big jumbled mass. That's what I was talking about earlier. 0:09:07.000 --> 0:09:10.080 We're really good at conversation. We don't even realize it. Yeah, 0:09:10.120 --> 0:09:12.040 but one of the first things you have to do 0:09:12.120 --> 0:09:15.480 then is not just record the phone call. You have 0:09:15.559 --> 0:09:18.120 to transcribe it. And that's what Gail Jefferson came up with, 0:09:18.280 --> 0:09:21.280 was that method of transcribing that it's pretty clever. If 0:09:21.360 --> 0:09:23.560 you know what you're looking at. You can get a 0:09:23.720 --> 0:09:27.199 lot of information from this transcription if it's used the 0:09:27.800 --> 0:09:28.800 Jefferson method. 0:09:29.520 --> 0:09:32.120 Yeah, and this was like, you know, this came around 0:09:32.120 --> 0:09:35.839 the early seventies. This is when linguist Gnome Chomsky was 0:09:35.920 --> 0:09:38.720 kind of out there in the public sphere with his 0:09:38.840 --> 0:09:42.720 idea that there's a universal grammar and this doesn't you know, 0:09:43.000 --> 0:09:45.720 this didn't set out to disprove that or anything like that. 0:09:46.080 --> 0:09:48.600 It was really more of let's look at different cultures 0:09:48.600 --> 0:09:52.480 and dynamics within a conversation. Because Chomsky, and you know 0:09:52.559 --> 0:09:57.120 some of his cohorts, was like, you know, conversations are 0:09:57.200 --> 0:10:00.720 just you can't analyze this kind of stuff stmatically. The 0:10:00.800 --> 0:10:04.240 conversations are too irregular and too different between people. And 0:10:04.280 --> 0:10:06.520 they were like, nah, I think we can actually come 0:10:06.600 --> 0:10:09.280 up with some principles that are consistent enough to do it. 0:10:09.320 --> 0:10:11.520 And I think they did totally. 0:10:11.720 --> 0:10:14.760 And one of the first projects that they started, one 0:10:14.760 --> 0:10:18.440 of Harvey Sach's first projects was he worked with a 0:10:18.440 --> 0:10:23.439 psychiatric hospital, an emergency psychiatric hospital. So their work's pretty urgent, 0:10:24.240 --> 0:10:26.480 you can imagine. And one of the things that they 0:10:26.480 --> 0:10:30.000 wanted to figure out was how to get patients to 0:10:30.040 --> 0:10:33.520 give them their name when they called in, because there 0:10:33.600 --> 0:10:35.760 was a certain amount of reluctance, as you can imagine, 0:10:35.840 --> 0:10:38.280 especially back in the mid to late sixties. 0:10:38.679 --> 0:10:42.840 Yeah, they found out when a call was answered at 0:10:42.840 --> 0:10:44.839 one of these places, they would say, if they said 0:10:44.920 --> 0:10:49.320 just hello, the person might just say hello. But if 0:10:49.360 --> 0:10:53.000 they said, well, hi, this is doctor Charles Bryant. What 0:10:53.000 --> 0:10:54.360 can I do for you today? May I help you? 0:10:55.040 --> 0:10:58.800 The people were much more inclined to then respond by saying, oh, well, 0:10:58.840 --> 0:11:02.840 this is also Charles, and I'm calling because I'm having 0:11:02.920 --> 0:11:05.559 some intrusive thoughts or something like that. 0:11:05.440 --> 0:11:08.319 Right, And then the receptionists would go, ah, I got you, 0:11:08.360 --> 0:11:10.480 I got your name, we know your name now. 0:11:13.000 --> 0:11:16.439 Yeah. Sometimes they found that people would not respond in 0:11:16.520 --> 0:11:20.319 kind with their name, and in those cases, it's pretty 0:11:20.360 --> 0:11:22.600 interesting and this, you know, kind of provided another little 0:11:22.920 --> 0:11:26.120 nugget of information for how these things go. Yeah, when 0:11:26.120 --> 0:11:28.720 they did not say, oh, yeah, my name's Chuck and 0:11:28.760 --> 0:11:31.560 I'm having, you know, intrusive thoughts, they would sort of 0:11:31.960 --> 0:11:35.160 introduce like an like a disruptor. They would say something 0:11:35.200 --> 0:11:38.600 like huh or what and just a small little bump 0:11:38.600 --> 0:11:42.480 in the road to change the conversational flow, right, subtly 0:11:42.559 --> 0:11:44.400 kind of saying like I don't want to give you 0:11:44.440 --> 0:11:46.000 my name without saying I don't want to give you 0:11:46.000 --> 0:11:46.559 my name. 0:11:46.600 --> 0:11:50.920 Right, Because what they found, conversation analysts found was that 0:11:51.120 --> 0:11:56.520 we follow set patterns, these kind of prescribed rhythms of conversations. 0:11:56.760 --> 0:12:01.480 So if you interrupt this the flow of one type 0:12:01.480 --> 0:12:04.600 of conversation would say a huh, a new set of 0:12:04.679 --> 0:12:08.200 rules comes up that takes the conversation from there that 0:12:08.320 --> 0:12:10.920 both people are aware of but don't realize they're aware of, 0:12:11.640 --> 0:12:14.079 which to me, I hadn't thought about it. But if 0:12:14.080 --> 0:12:17.200 you've ever said huh to somebody when you knew full 0:12:17.240 --> 0:12:20.040 well what they had just said, you were just reflexively 0:12:20.040 --> 0:12:23.679 trying to derail or disrupt that type of script in 0:12:23.679 --> 0:12:26.200 favor of a different one. Never realized that before, but 0:12:26.480 --> 0:12:27.439 it makes sense. 0:12:27.320 --> 0:12:30.720 Or maybe by time even, but it's just some sort 0:12:30.760 --> 0:12:34.680 of a disruptor to divert something for some reason. Sacks 0:12:34.720 --> 0:12:40.000 identified another thing called composits, and they're phrases that are 0:12:40.320 --> 0:12:43.680 kind of combined as a unit, and it usually is 0:12:43.720 --> 0:12:46.280 a prompt for some kind of response, Like if someone 0:12:46.280 --> 0:12:48.359 says may I help you like that on the telephone, 0:12:49.200 --> 0:12:52.880 what they're then obviously is asking you for a response. 0:12:52.920 --> 0:12:54.880 They'll let you know what's going on, and in the 0:12:54.880 --> 0:12:58.080 case of like an emergency call center, they might literally 0:12:58.320 --> 0:13:00.480 respond to may I help you by saying I don't know. 0:13:01.160 --> 0:13:04.120 And what they found was is it wasn't like like 0:13:04.120 --> 0:13:07.280 that was a reasonable response, like somebody might literally say like, 0:13:07.640 --> 0:13:09.760 I don't know if you can help me, and it 0:13:09.840 --> 0:13:12.000 needed to be sort of taking a face value like. 0:13:11.960 --> 0:13:16.839 That, right. What that suggested that Sex discovered was that 0:13:16.880 --> 0:13:19.240 there were these composites where if you're saying, man, I 0:13:19.240 --> 0:13:22.200 help you, you don't mean it at face value. It's 0:13:22.640 --> 0:13:24.920 a part of a I think what would be called 0:13:25.000 --> 0:13:29.240 later an adjacent pair, where you prompt, you say something 0:13:29.720 --> 0:13:33.240 that's a prompt and there's an expected like range of 0:13:33.480 --> 0:13:37.920 responses to it, and anything outside of that is like Okay, 0:13:38.160 --> 0:13:41.559 that makes sense on paper, but it doesn't make sense conversationally. 0:13:41.960 --> 0:13:45.160 And he kind of supported this with the idea he 0:13:45.200 --> 0:13:47.840 wrote in a nineteen seventy five paper that everybody has 0:13:47.880 --> 0:13:51.880 to lie yeah, And he used the example of like 0:13:52.120 --> 0:13:56.400 a greeting among people meeting on the street, where you say, like, 0:13:56.520 --> 0:13:59.400 how are you doing, and if the person says anything 0:13:59.480 --> 0:14:02.760 other than fine or great or good, they have just 0:14:02.920 --> 0:14:07.319 violated this type of composite prompt. You're not supposed to 0:14:07.360 --> 0:14:10.200 say anything else. And even more interesting than this, chuck 0:14:10.280 --> 0:14:13.760 is that they seem to have found that this is 0:14:13.800 --> 0:14:17.280 actually universal. It's not just like among Americans or English 0:14:17.280 --> 0:14:21.360 speakers or Germans or anything like that. Everybody essentially does 0:14:21.400 --> 0:14:23.680 not want to know how you're actually doing. 0:14:24.320 --> 0:14:27.880 Yeah, And I found that that's a very good indicator 0:14:27.920 --> 0:14:30.840 of closeness and how you know that you've developed a 0:14:30.880 --> 0:14:34.760 true like closeness with someone else, like a friendship or whatever, 0:14:35.480 --> 0:14:38.360 because that's much more of a formal thing. Even if 0:14:38.400 --> 0:14:40.640 you know somebody but don't know them that well, you'll 0:14:40.640 --> 0:14:42.440 say oh, like yeah, yeah, I'm doing fine. They're like, oh, 0:14:42.480 --> 0:14:44.800 pretty good. But if it's somebody you really know when 0:14:44.800 --> 0:14:48.760 you're close to, you don't have to lie. You can 0:14:48.880 --> 0:14:51.920 very easily say I'm super tired or I'm not doing 0:14:51.960 --> 0:14:53.040 great because xyz. 0:14:53.360 --> 0:14:55.720 Yeah. If you find somebody who actually does want to 0:14:55.760 --> 0:14:57.360 know how you're doing, you hang on to that. 0:14:57.280 --> 0:15:00.480 Person, right. Or if you meet someone up blue and 0:15:00.520 --> 0:15:02.640 say how you doing and they start in with the truth, 0:15:02.720 --> 0:15:03.440 then just walk. 0:15:03.320 --> 0:15:05.840 Away, right, maybe even jog away. 0:15:06.280 --> 0:15:07.120 Yeah, red flag. 0:15:08.360 --> 0:15:11.520 Uh So. One of the other big breakthroughs was came 0:15:11.560 --> 0:15:16.000 along when you could rent VCRs and they had giant 0:15:16.800 --> 0:15:19.840 recording equipment like the kind they used in poultry Geist. 0:15:20.280 --> 0:15:24.160 That changed conversation analysis, where now all of a sudden 0:15:24.160 --> 0:15:26.320 you could see all the stuff that goes along with it. 0:15:26.320 --> 0:15:29.720 It wasn't just telephone calls from disembodied voices. You could 0:15:29.720 --> 0:15:32.360 see how people interacted and it opened up this whole 0:15:32.400 --> 0:15:34.040 new world for sure. 0:15:34.560 --> 0:15:35.480 Should we take a break? 0:15:35.840 --> 0:15:37.120 I knew you were gonna say that. 0:15:38.040 --> 0:15:39.440 All right, we'll be right back. 0:15:39.640 --> 0:15:46.120 Stucks, It sucks, you know it stucks. It's a great name. 0:15:46.200 --> 0:15:49.280 Yeah, that's the name of it. 0:15:49.280 --> 0:15:51.600 It's a great name. All right, Stucks met. 0:15:51.520 --> 0:16:07.000 With an X. You know, before we broke you talked 0:16:07.000 --> 0:16:10.880 about the huge cameras, and I'm reading Matthew Modine's diary 0:16:11.560 --> 0:16:15.120 of making a Full Metal Jacket, you know, the actor 0:16:15.160 --> 0:16:15.800 of Matthew Modine. 0:16:15.920 --> 0:16:17.960 Of course I know exactly what you're talking about. But 0:16:18.280 --> 0:16:20.280 number one, I can't believe there is such a thing. 0:16:20.320 --> 0:16:22.000 In number two, I can't believe you're reading it. 0:16:22.480 --> 0:16:24.840 Oh, it's great. It's his diary when he was making 0:16:24.920 --> 0:16:27.440 the movie. Casey actually got it for me when we 0:16:27.440 --> 0:16:30.000 were doing movie Crushes. Very sweet gift. But he at 0:16:30.040 --> 0:16:34.480 one point he was talking about having to put yourself 0:16:34.520 --> 0:16:38.000 on tape for an audition, which is something routinely done 0:16:38.040 --> 0:16:40.280 all the time now, especially since the writer strikes and 0:16:40.360 --> 0:16:43.200 COVID and stuff. But he was like, it's just such 0:16:43.200 --> 0:16:45.160 a pain. You got to know somebody who has one 0:16:45.160 --> 0:16:47.320 of those huge video cameras and you have to go 0:16:47.360 --> 0:16:49.240 to their studio and blah blah blah. 0:16:49.440 --> 0:16:51.600 It was just like it was very cute and quaint Yep, 0:16:51.640 --> 0:16:53.280 my niece Mila has to do that a lot. 0:16:53.960 --> 0:16:56.000 Yeah, Yeah, it's it's super It's kind of the way 0:16:56.000 --> 0:16:56.600 it's done now. 0:16:56.640 --> 0:17:00.960 For sure, sure, but yeah, I imagine it's it's I 0:17:00.960 --> 0:17:03.240 don't know which would be worse doing it live in 0:17:03.240 --> 0:17:05.199 front of people, are doing it in front of a 0:17:05.240 --> 0:17:08.080 recording that you're getting zero feedback from. 0:17:07.960 --> 0:17:10.960 The Every actor I knows hates putting themselves on tape. 0:17:10.960 --> 0:17:11.960 They would much rather be in the. 0:17:12.000 --> 0:17:18.000 Room, gotcha, because they're all energy vampires, right exactly. So 0:17:18.640 --> 0:17:20.760 one of the things I kind of alluded to earlier 0:17:20.800 --> 0:17:24.160 is that conversation analysis is not a standard social science, 0:17:24.200 --> 0:17:27.200 and that it doesn't develop theories of why people are 0:17:27.400 --> 0:17:30.119 doing these things or why you said this when somebody 0:17:30.160 --> 0:17:33.120 else said that. Again, they're just looking for patterns. They're 0:17:33.119 --> 0:17:35.880 looking at its structure. And the cool thing about it 0:17:35.920 --> 0:17:38.480 is that that doesn't mean that they're not deriving any meaning. 0:17:39.160 --> 0:17:42.640 They're not postulating what it means. Like for example, they're 0:17:42.640 --> 0:17:46.680 not going up to two listeners or two speakers and 0:17:46.840 --> 0:17:49.159 they go to speaker number two and say, what do 0:17:49.200 --> 0:17:51.680 you think speaker number one meant when they said how 0:17:51.720 --> 0:17:56.640 are you doing? They just analyze the conversation, and based 0:17:56.640 --> 0:18:02.240 on speaker two's response, that tells the conversation analysts what 0:18:02.600 --> 0:18:05.399 speaker number two thought speaker number one was saying. So 0:18:05.840 --> 0:18:08.399 just by examining it they can come up with meaning 0:18:08.520 --> 0:18:11.919 or derive meaning from it. And again, it's just not 0:18:12.119 --> 0:18:15.240 like other social sciences, and it seems to really stick 0:18:15.280 --> 0:18:17.040 in the craw of everybody else. I love it. 0:18:17.720 --> 0:18:20.720 Yeah, they also didn't want to They wanted to be 0:18:20.760 --> 0:18:23.360 as organic as possible and just have people have naturally 0:18:24.200 --> 0:18:27.520 natural conversations with each other rather than orchestrating some big 0:18:27.600 --> 0:18:31.960 like scenarios. You do have to just because of scientific 0:18:32.040 --> 0:18:34.440 ethics and stuff, you have to tell people they're being recorded, 0:18:34.760 --> 0:18:37.040 so you can't truly be just a fly on the wall. 0:18:37.400 --> 0:18:41.000 But they did find that just the introduction of a 0:18:41.080 --> 0:18:43.960 recording device they didn't feel like and I think they've 0:18:44.000 --> 0:18:47.840 shown through evidence that it didn't really significantly change things 0:18:47.960 --> 0:18:51.560 enough to where the result was thrown out or whatever. 0:18:51.720 --> 0:18:56.440 Right, right, And like we said that, when you are 0:18:56.560 --> 0:19:00.920 beginning a conversation analysis, you start with a recording of 0:19:00.960 --> 0:19:06.399 a conversation. Nowadays it's with videotapes, and then you transcribe it. 0:19:06.440 --> 0:19:09.560 And one of the big things in conversation analysis is 0:19:09.560 --> 0:19:11.840 when you transcribe it, you need to do it as 0:19:11.840 --> 0:19:15.119 objectively as possible. You need to keep out your own 0:19:15.440 --> 0:19:19.800 subjective thoughts about who did what and just faithfully say 0:19:19.920 --> 0:19:23.280 this was an interruption, this was a TCU. This person 0:19:23.920 --> 0:19:26.080 took a break breath in the middle of their word. 0:19:27.359 --> 0:19:31.000 Josh just said he corrected himself in the middle of 0:19:31.000 --> 0:19:33.640 the sentence. So he just used the repair and notate 0:19:33.680 --> 0:19:38.560 all this stuff without any subjective input from you, and 0:19:38.600 --> 0:19:40.960 then you go back and you analyze it after it's 0:19:40.960 --> 0:19:42.200 been fully transcribed. 0:19:42.840 --> 0:19:46.639 Yeah, and so you've been very cleverly, i might say, 0:19:47.960 --> 0:19:50.879 subtly dropping in little little words here and there that 0:19:50.920 --> 0:19:53.200 people are like, what's he talking about with this stuff? 0:19:53.880 --> 0:19:55.760 That's the stuff that they're looking for, and that's the 0:19:55.760 --> 0:19:59.880 stuff that they named, like things that like in common parlance, 0:20:00.200 --> 0:20:03.200 we know some of these things like rejoinders and interruptions 0:20:03.200 --> 0:20:05.399 and things like that. But you know they're analysts, so 0:20:05.440 --> 0:20:08.479 they took it a step further. And here are some 0:20:08.520 --> 0:20:10.600 of those right now. One of them is called a 0:20:10.720 --> 0:20:15.879 turn constructional unit TCU obviously not Texas Christian University. 0:20:17.000 --> 0:20:20.399 There are frogs, horn toads, horn frogs. I think something 0:20:20.520 --> 0:20:22.879 like that, Yeah, chief and tree frogs. 0:20:23.400 --> 0:20:27.240 I think that's it. But turn construction units are the 0:20:27.240 --> 0:20:31.320 building blocks of any conversation, of every conversation. And it 0:20:31.359 --> 0:20:35.160 can be just a gesture like a nod at somebody, 0:20:35.200 --> 0:20:38.399 it can be multiple sentences, but they end up with 0:20:38.480 --> 0:20:42.679 what's called a transition relevance place a TRP, and that 0:20:42.840 --> 0:20:46.359 is a moment where like what you've said has ended 0:20:46.920 --> 0:20:49.760 and someone else may have a turn to speak now, 0:20:49.960 --> 0:20:52.720 or you may say something else after that, and that's 0:20:52.800 --> 0:20:58.440 just you taking another turn, basically and having two turn 0:20:58.560 --> 0:21:00.000 constructional units in a row. 0:21:01.040 --> 0:21:03.360 And so what just right after you said in a row, 0:21:03.480 --> 0:21:07.040 that's where the transition relevance place was. That was it 0:21:07.320 --> 0:21:10.280 because it gave me a chance to start talking, and 0:21:10.440 --> 0:21:12.800 everything you said leading up to it was the turn 0:21:12.920 --> 0:21:16.760 constructional unit. That was your turn. You took your turn 0:21:16.920 --> 0:21:20.040 in the conversation. There was a pause that allowed me 0:21:20.080 --> 0:21:23.639 to start taking my turn, And that's the basic building 0:21:23.680 --> 0:21:24.879 blocks of the conversation. 0:21:25.560 --> 0:21:28.239 That's right, Okay, see, you're good at this. 0:21:28.400 --> 0:21:34.080 There's also when I analyze it, sure, there's also like 0:21:34.160 --> 0:21:37.560 a lot of different I guess rules or exceptions or whatever. 0:21:37.680 --> 0:21:40.200 Like you could say, you could use two turns in 0:21:40.240 --> 0:21:44.240 a row without really allowing for a transition relevance, place 0:21:44.320 --> 0:21:47.800 that pause that allows the other speaker to start. For example, 0:21:49.440 --> 0:21:52.320 you could say, are you hungry? I could go for 0:21:52.359 --> 0:21:55.240 a burger. You actually just took two turns like a 0:21:55.240 --> 0:22:00.280 big fat hog without any pause in the middle. And 0:22:00.400 --> 0:22:03.920 yet that's not considered like any sort of violation of conversation. 0:22:04.080 --> 0:22:07.240