1 00:00:03,120 --> 00:00:06,000 Speaker 1: Welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind from how Stuff 2 00:00:06,000 --> 00:00:13,640 Speaker 1: Works dot com. Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind. 3 00:00:13,680 --> 00:00:17,040 Speaker 1: My name is Robert lamp and I'm Julie duxas Julie. 4 00:00:17,040 --> 00:00:19,520 Speaker 1: You go first, let me go first. You go first. Oh, 5 00:00:19,560 --> 00:00:23,200 Speaker 1: you're so polite. Thank you. Uh. And which is of 6 00:00:23,239 --> 00:00:25,959 Speaker 1: course the topic that we are talking about today, because 7 00:00:25,960 --> 00:00:30,200 Speaker 1: we're talking about how opening doors, holding the elevator, all 8 00:00:30,280 --> 00:00:34,080 Speaker 1: those little things, those pleased and thank you, the niceties 9 00:00:34,800 --> 00:00:38,479 Speaker 1: that can make all the other little indignities of life 10 00:00:38,520 --> 00:00:42,120 Speaker 1: seem not so much of a big deal. The elevator. 11 00:00:42,159 --> 00:00:44,840 Speaker 1: I'm so glad to not use an elevator anymore every 12 00:00:44,920 --> 00:00:47,360 Speaker 1: day to get to the office in our new building, right, 13 00:00:47,400 --> 00:00:49,720 Speaker 1: I just take the stairs. It saves me that that 14 00:00:49,720 --> 00:00:52,120 Speaker 1: that feeling you get when you rush ahead onto the 15 00:00:52,120 --> 00:00:56,120 Speaker 1: elevator and then you realize there's someone else coming. But 16 00:00:56,200 --> 00:00:58,280 Speaker 1: if you don't look at them, then you're not obligated 17 00:00:58,360 --> 00:01:01,880 Speaker 1: to keep the door open. Yeah, there's a whole we've 18 00:01:01,880 --> 00:01:05,680 Speaker 1: talked about this, we actually did. Yeah, elevator elevator etiquette, 19 00:01:05,800 --> 00:01:08,679 Speaker 1: and how a lot of that, like your politeness, is 20 00:01:08,680 --> 00:01:12,280 Speaker 1: probably tied to the algorithm of that elevator because if 21 00:01:12,360 --> 00:01:14,440 Speaker 1: you know that that elevator is only gonna come every 22 00:01:14,440 --> 00:01:20,120 Speaker 1: two seconds, you're not probably gonna hold the open door 23 00:01:20,160 --> 00:01:22,919 Speaker 1: button for that person. Yeah. The algorithm for the stairs 24 00:01:22,959 --> 00:01:24,920 Speaker 1: is pretty simple, and that's if I slip and fall, 25 00:01:25,480 --> 00:01:27,800 Speaker 1: probably nobody will find me in there because no one 26 00:01:27,880 --> 00:01:30,120 Speaker 1: uses those stairs. And that's that's you know. That's the 27 00:01:30,160 --> 00:01:33,880 Speaker 1: interesting thing about politeness too, is that, um, yeah, I 28 00:01:33,920 --> 00:01:35,480 Speaker 1: hope that you don't have something fall by the way, 29 00:01:35,560 --> 00:01:37,880 Speaker 1: that would be terrible. Um. That's the interesting thing about 30 00:01:37,880 --> 00:01:40,759 Speaker 1: politeness is that it seems like at face value it's 31 00:01:40,800 --> 00:01:44,039 Speaker 1: pretty straightforward. But as we will get into there is 32 00:01:44,080 --> 00:01:47,720 Speaker 1: a kind of algorithm in place that dictates our levels 33 00:01:47,800 --> 00:01:51,360 Speaker 1: of politeness, and when we engage in it, Yeah, we're 34 00:01:51,360 --> 00:01:55,760 Speaker 1: constantly tuning our politeness level to meet every face, every situation. 35 00:01:56,400 --> 00:01:59,920 Speaker 1: It's ultimately, I keep thinking of this this massive spider web, 36 00:02:00,000 --> 00:02:02,360 Speaker 1: and it's holding us all in our place, our place 37 00:02:02,400 --> 00:02:07,760 Speaker 1: in society, our place in our interpersonal relationships, and just 38 00:02:08,000 --> 00:02:10,320 Speaker 1: and and and we depend on that wedding just to 39 00:02:10,400 --> 00:02:12,640 Speaker 1: hold it all together. It sounds kind of dastardly, the 40 00:02:12,680 --> 00:02:15,560 Speaker 1: web of polite, Yes, because there's a big spider there somewhere, 41 00:02:15,639 --> 00:02:19,640 Speaker 1: right indeed ready to gobble us up. Um. But you know, 42 00:02:19,680 --> 00:02:21,960 Speaker 1: one of the things that we came across in our 43 00:02:22,000 --> 00:02:25,960 Speaker 1: research is that politeness, as well intentioned as it can be, 44 00:02:26,040 --> 00:02:30,280 Speaker 1: can sometimes be misconstrued. And a good example of this 45 00:02:30,440 --> 00:02:35,440 Speaker 1: is holding doors open for men. Oh yes, yeah. And 46 00:02:35,680 --> 00:02:39,600 Speaker 1: there's a research paper entitled When Door Holding Harms Gender 47 00:02:39,639 --> 00:02:44,000 Speaker 1: and the Consequences of non Normative Help by Megan McCarty 48 00:02:44,040 --> 00:02:46,120 Speaker 1: and Janice Kelly. And I think that title kind of 49 00:02:46,160 --> 00:02:50,120 Speaker 1: says it all. Non normative help. Um. So what we're 50 00:02:50,160 --> 00:02:53,920 Speaker 1: talking about here hundred and nineties unsuspecting men and women 51 00:02:54,040 --> 00:02:58,280 Speaker 1: stepping through two portals into a Purdue University building. But 52 00:02:58,440 --> 00:03:01,280 Speaker 1: first they were a by a male member of the 53 00:03:01,320 --> 00:03:04,519 Speaker 1: research team as they walked toward the building. For half, 54 00:03:04,919 --> 00:03:07,959 Speaker 1: the research associate quote took a step in front of 55 00:03:07,960 --> 00:03:10,560 Speaker 1: the participant, opened the door and let the participant walk 56 00:03:10,600 --> 00:03:14,800 Speaker 1: through the front door first. Very chivalrous. Right. For the 57 00:03:14,840 --> 00:03:18,640 Speaker 1: other half, he reached for the adjacent door, so that 58 00:03:18,680 --> 00:03:22,080 Speaker 1: the two opened their doors more or less simultaneously. Would 59 00:03:22,120 --> 00:03:25,359 Speaker 1: you think that there would be weirdness from this? Yeah? 60 00:03:25,520 --> 00:03:28,120 Speaker 1: I think I would think there would be. Yeah, I mean, 61 00:03:28,200 --> 00:03:31,840 Speaker 1: initially I wouldn't have thought so, but once those people 62 00:03:31,919 --> 00:03:33,720 Speaker 1: got on the other side of the door, there was 63 00:03:33,760 --> 00:03:38,080 Speaker 1: a female research associate and she approached each subject and 64 00:03:38,120 --> 00:03:40,600 Speaker 1: asked him or her to complete a short survey and 65 00:03:40,680 --> 00:03:44,880 Speaker 1: on a one attend scale, they indicated UH their agreement 66 00:03:44,960 --> 00:03:48,600 Speaker 1: with three statements measuring self esteem, including quote I feel 67 00:03:48,640 --> 00:03:52,320 Speaker 1: that I'm a person of worth um at least on 68 00:03:52,360 --> 00:03:57,080 Speaker 1: an equal plane with others, and three measuring self efficacy, 69 00:03:57,160 --> 00:03:59,760 Speaker 1: including I can usually achieve what I want if I 70 00:03:59,800 --> 00:04:02,200 Speaker 1: work hard for it. And the results is that male 71 00:04:02,800 --> 00:04:07,000 Speaker 1: and only males, reported lower levels of self esteem and 72 00:04:07,040 --> 00:04:10,800 Speaker 1: self confidence if the door had been held open for them. Oh, 73 00:04:11,000 --> 00:04:14,160 Speaker 1: so it comes down to like the basic power to 74 00:04:14,480 --> 00:04:17,960 Speaker 1: enter a space and and your your self worth in 75 00:04:18,120 --> 00:04:20,479 Speaker 1: entering it. If someone is opening the door for you, 76 00:04:20,960 --> 00:04:26,440 Speaker 1: then your masculine reptilian brain can't handle it, or your 77 00:04:26,520 --> 00:04:31,440 Speaker 1: gender performing self can't handle it um And that's the 78 00:04:31,480 --> 00:04:35,039 Speaker 1: gender performing part. Is interesting because there's a guy named 79 00:04:35,040 --> 00:04:40,520 Speaker 1: Irving Goffman, a Canadian American sociologist, and he viewed society 80 00:04:40,560 --> 00:04:44,640 Speaker 1: through what is called symbolic interaction perspective. So this is 81 00:04:45,200 --> 00:04:48,599 Speaker 1: kind of like everyday behavior in the interactions between people 82 00:04:48,680 --> 00:04:51,480 Speaker 1: to help explain why society is the way that it is. 83 00:04:52,080 --> 00:04:56,680 Speaker 1: And Goffman applied something called dramaturgical analysis and already too 84 00:04:56,800 --> 00:05:00,560 Speaker 1: in order to study this kind of social interaction. Um 85 00:05:00,560 --> 00:05:03,920 Speaker 1: so he looked at this as really theater performance. In 86 00:05:03,960 --> 00:05:07,919 Speaker 1: his book The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, he 87 00:05:08,000 --> 00:05:11,080 Speaker 1: looked at self as an image deriving from the perceptions 88 00:05:11,120 --> 00:05:14,280 Speaker 1: and responses of others that create the face of the person, 89 00:05:14,800 --> 00:05:17,839 Speaker 1: and two as the actor, as a player in a 90 00:05:17,960 --> 00:05:22,960 Speaker 1: game or a set of rituals. So, for self preservation's sake, 91 00:05:23,240 --> 00:05:28,080 Speaker 1: the self, especially the actor representing yourself right, would be 92 00:05:28,120 --> 00:05:32,560 Speaker 1: interested in cooperations, signs and symbols and well understood practices 93 00:05:32,600 --> 00:05:35,719 Speaker 1: in society, like hey, you don't hope open the door 94 00:05:35,720 --> 00:05:37,520 Speaker 1: for me. I'm a strong man. I don't need another 95 00:05:37,560 --> 00:05:40,480 Speaker 1: man to do that. Right. So, in other words, for 96 00:05:40,560 --> 00:05:44,880 Speaker 1: most of us, we inhabit these actor selves on stage 97 00:05:44,960 --> 00:05:48,880 Speaker 1: responding to an audience, whoever the audience is, and we 98 00:05:49,040 --> 00:05:52,880 Speaker 1: try to guide the impression and form the identity through 99 00:05:52,920 --> 00:05:57,920 Speaker 1: the gaze of others, and our backstage selves are hidden away. 100 00:05:58,000 --> 00:06:02,000 Speaker 1: And this is where a lot of this idea of 101 00:06:02,040 --> 00:06:05,000 Speaker 1: politeness and how we perform it comes into play. I 102 00:06:05,040 --> 00:06:08,920 Speaker 1: like the use of signs, symbols and ritual in this 103 00:06:09,080 --> 00:06:12,200 Speaker 1: because it makes it sound like every interaction we have, 104 00:06:12,279 --> 00:06:16,240 Speaker 1: every little polite interaction is is ultimately just a ritualistic 105 00:06:16,440 --> 00:06:22,239 Speaker 1: activity UM dealing with an abstract self, which show which 106 00:06:22,560 --> 00:06:27,760 Speaker 1: kind of mean because everything has some sort of context 107 00:06:27,880 --> 00:06:31,800 Speaker 1: to it that we all understand the game rules to write, Like, 108 00:06:31,839 --> 00:06:34,280 Speaker 1: if you were just given this object and you had 109 00:06:34,360 --> 00:06:36,200 Speaker 1: never seen it before, you wouldn't know what to do 110 00:06:36,279 --> 00:06:38,039 Speaker 1: with it or how to interact with it. You would 111 00:06:38,080 --> 00:06:42,400 Speaker 1: need someone to tell you, like, this is uh, this 112 00:06:43,000 --> 00:06:46,080 Speaker 1: sphere and you can open up one of the compartments. 113 00:06:46,080 --> 00:06:49,800 Speaker 1: I'm holding the actual like sphere like thing um and 114 00:06:49,880 --> 00:06:52,279 Speaker 1: it's empty and you can put paper clips in it. 115 00:06:52,680 --> 00:06:54,479 Speaker 1: Otherwise you'd be if you've never seen it before, you 116 00:06:54,480 --> 00:06:56,440 Speaker 1: would be like, what is this alien thing? Yeah, I 117 00:06:56,440 --> 00:07:00,520 Speaker 1: mean every every little interaction, particularly the holding the door 118 00:07:00,560 --> 00:07:02,960 Speaker 1: scenario that we've been discussing here, it's it's kind of 119 00:07:02,960 --> 00:07:05,680 Speaker 1: its own little micro reality. It's it's own little game 120 00:07:05,760 --> 00:07:08,239 Speaker 1: with a set of rules and expectations. And no matter 121 00:07:08,279 --> 00:07:10,400 Speaker 1: what else is going on in the office building, or 122 00:07:10,440 --> 00:07:13,480 Speaker 1: the environment, or the country or the personal lives that 123 00:07:13,520 --> 00:07:16,640 Speaker 1: are going on, you have to enter that micro reality 124 00:07:16,640 --> 00:07:18,240 Speaker 1: at least for a few seconds to deal with it. 125 00:07:18,880 --> 00:07:23,480 Speaker 1: Full disclosure here, um, Over the past couple of years, 126 00:07:24,200 --> 00:07:26,960 Speaker 1: myself and a couple of the other house staff works 127 00:07:27,440 --> 00:07:33,200 Speaker 1: female staff workers here have been holding doors open for 128 00:07:33,280 --> 00:07:36,239 Speaker 1: men and then just seeing if they have a certain 129 00:07:36,280 --> 00:07:41,280 Speaker 1: kind of body language afterward. And just for the record, 130 00:07:41,600 --> 00:07:44,720 Speaker 1: the only person who has not allowed us to open 131 00:07:44,760 --> 00:07:46,800 Speaker 1: the door for him and not knowing what was going 132 00:07:46,840 --> 00:07:50,680 Speaker 1: on at all, with Scott Benjamin of Carson. It was 133 00:07:50,720 --> 00:07:54,360 Speaker 1: the nicest, most polite person in the world. He knows 134 00:07:54,400 --> 00:07:56,040 Speaker 1: the rules of the game and he's not gonna allow 135 00:07:56,080 --> 00:08:00,480 Speaker 1: you to break them. Noop alright, so Goffman theory that 136 00:08:00,560 --> 00:08:05,480 Speaker 1: was nine early sixties that comes out. The next step 137 00:08:05,720 --> 00:08:10,160 Speaker 1: in this study of politeness comes from with politeness theory 138 00:08:10,800 --> 00:08:15,360 Speaker 1: from husband and wife researchers Steven c. Levinson and Penelope Brown. 139 00:08:15,920 --> 00:08:19,160 Speaker 1: The basic concept here is that people have a social 140 00:08:19,240 --> 00:08:23,840 Speaker 1: self image and they consciously projected. Okay. The self image 141 00:08:23,840 --> 00:08:26,360 Speaker 1: is called face, as in you know, to save face, 142 00:08:27,160 --> 00:08:31,000 Speaker 1: and it has a dual nature positive face and negative face. 143 00:08:31,480 --> 00:08:35,319 Speaker 1: Positive face seeks approval, while negative face wants to be 144 00:08:35,440 --> 00:08:38,520 Speaker 1: left alone, doesn't want to be imposed upon. Now what 145 00:08:38,559 --> 00:08:40,920 Speaker 1: face do you have? What face are you dealing with? 146 00:08:41,080 --> 00:08:43,400 Speaker 1: I mean it all, it all depends, especially when you're 147 00:08:43,440 --> 00:08:46,599 Speaker 1: dealing with a face threatening act or an f t 148 00:08:46,880 --> 00:08:51,000 Speaker 1: A where the face that you're you're wearing is essentially challenged. 149 00:08:51,280 --> 00:08:53,320 Speaker 1: And of course there are two shades of this as well. 150 00:08:53,880 --> 00:08:56,800 Speaker 1: Positive f t A s are a direct challenge to 151 00:08:56,920 --> 00:08:59,000 Speaker 1: face or self image. You can think of this in 152 00:08:59,120 --> 00:09:04,160 Speaker 1: terms of an insult, a socially inappropriate comment, something of 153 00:09:04,200 --> 00:09:09,199 Speaker 1: that nature. Meanwhile, negative FDAs are far more confrontational. Uh, 154 00:09:09,360 --> 00:09:12,880 Speaker 1: somebody has to budge, somebody has to act, and an 155 00:09:12,920 --> 00:09:16,280 Speaker 1: imposition is being made. The example that that keeps coming 156 00:09:16,320 --> 00:09:19,160 Speaker 1: to my mind on this one on the negative FDA 157 00:09:19,559 --> 00:09:23,280 Speaker 1: is Dr Seus's story The Zacks from It was. It's 158 00:09:23,280 --> 00:09:26,320 Speaker 1: a very short little story in the book The Sneeches. 159 00:09:26,760 --> 00:09:29,199 Speaker 1: And you have a north going Zack and a south 160 00:09:29,240 --> 00:09:31,520 Speaker 1: going Zack and they neeed together, and I believe the 161 00:09:31,559 --> 00:09:34,880 Speaker 1: desert of packs, and neither one is gonna budge, like 162 00:09:35,000 --> 00:09:36,360 Speaker 1: the one is saying you have to get out of 163 00:09:36,400 --> 00:09:38,240 Speaker 1: my way because I'm going north and that's the way 164 00:09:38,280 --> 00:09:40,640 Speaker 1: I roll. And then the south going Zack says, no, 165 00:09:40,720 --> 00:09:42,360 Speaker 1: I'm I'm going south and you're in my way, and 166 00:09:42,360 --> 00:09:43,600 Speaker 1: you've got to get out of the way, because that's 167 00:09:43,600 --> 00:09:47,960 Speaker 1: how I roll. And they neither one budges, and civilization 168 00:09:48,320 --> 00:09:50,760 Speaker 1: builds up around them and roads are built over them 169 00:09:50,760 --> 00:09:53,920 Speaker 1: in the highway and packs. But but yeah, so that's 170 00:09:54,000 --> 00:09:57,760 Speaker 1: that's not engaging in the act of cooperation, right, And 171 00:09:57,840 --> 00:10:00,720 Speaker 1: that's ultimately what it what what is happening in in 172 00:10:01,679 --> 00:10:03,880 Speaker 1: in a negative f t A is somebody has to budge. 173 00:10:04,320 --> 00:10:05,880 Speaker 1: And I was thinking about the term f t A 174 00:10:05,960 --> 00:10:08,680 Speaker 1: this this facial threatening act that sounds so dramatic, But 175 00:10:08,720 --> 00:10:10,959 Speaker 1: have you ever been in a situation where you've been 176 00:10:11,000 --> 00:10:14,480 Speaker 1: with another person or a group of people and everything 177 00:10:14,559 --> 00:10:18,559 Speaker 1: is pretty light and then one person's face falls and 178 00:10:18,600 --> 00:10:21,160 Speaker 1: has and drops out of that sort of cooperative thing. 179 00:10:21,240 --> 00:10:24,120 Speaker 1: And it's really a very unsettling thing to see that 180 00:10:24,240 --> 00:10:27,960 Speaker 1: because it's so clear that that person is upset or 181 00:10:28,200 --> 00:10:31,880 Speaker 1: feels threatened or is threatening another person. Yeah, Like the 182 00:10:31,880 --> 00:10:34,280 Speaker 1: classic example would be you accidentally make some sort of 183 00:10:34,280 --> 00:10:36,960 Speaker 1: faux paw you make, you make an off color joke, 184 00:10:37,280 --> 00:10:42,320 Speaker 1: and unknowingly it affects somebody on a personal level. Yeah, 185 00:10:42,440 --> 00:10:46,760 Speaker 1: So politeness theory essentially is driving home the idea that 186 00:10:46,840 --> 00:10:52,280 Speaker 1: politeness serves to both reflect and regulate our social distance. Now, 187 00:10:52,320 --> 00:10:58,079 Speaker 1: politeness theory identifies for politeness strategies that a speaker uses, 188 00:10:58,200 --> 00:11:01,520 Speaker 1: and the first is what is called a bald On strategy, 189 00:11:01,559 --> 00:11:03,600 Speaker 1: and it's a direct approach that you would use with 190 00:11:03,640 --> 00:11:05,400 Speaker 1: someone that you know really well, so like a family 191 00:11:05,400 --> 00:11:08,800 Speaker 1: member or a loved one. So for example, you're at 192 00:11:08,800 --> 00:11:11,800 Speaker 1: home visiting your parents, you might say, I want pizza 193 00:11:11,840 --> 00:11:16,360 Speaker 1: for dinner. Right, very direct the second strategy because by 194 00:11:16,360 --> 00:11:18,120 Speaker 1: the way, you don't have to worry about their faces 195 00:11:18,240 --> 00:11:23,560 Speaker 1: falling so much, right they from the child on the pizza, 196 00:11:23,640 --> 00:11:27,280 Speaker 1: sure is right? Right um, But again you don't have 197 00:11:27,280 --> 00:11:29,840 Speaker 1: to worry worry about the ft A factor too much. 198 00:11:30,160 --> 00:11:34,800 Speaker 1: The second strategy, the positive politeness strategy, shows you recognize 199 00:11:34,880 --> 00:11:37,839 Speaker 1: that your audience or the person you're talking to, has 200 00:11:37,920 --> 00:11:41,000 Speaker 1: a desire to be respected. It also confirms that the 201 00:11:41,080 --> 00:11:46,000 Speaker 1: relationship is friendly and expresses group reciprocity. So perhaps the 202 00:11:46,120 --> 00:11:49,280 Speaker 1: request would be something like, is it okay we have 203 00:11:49,360 --> 00:11:52,160 Speaker 1: pizza for dinner tonight? You know, it's just a little 204 00:11:52,200 --> 00:11:56,800 Speaker 1: bit softer of a lab there the negative politeness strategy. 205 00:11:56,880 --> 00:12:02,040 Speaker 1: The third strategy also recognizes audiences faces, but it also 206 00:12:02,120 --> 00:12:06,320 Speaker 1: recognizes that you are in some way imposing upon them. Okay, 207 00:12:06,360 --> 00:12:09,880 Speaker 1: So again we're seeing degrees of relationships removed here. So 208 00:12:09,920 --> 00:12:13,480 Speaker 1: maybe this is someone I wouldn't normally have dinner with, 209 00:12:13,960 --> 00:12:16,320 Speaker 1: and I don't know what the preferences are, so you 210 00:12:16,360 --> 00:12:19,680 Speaker 1: could say something like, um, you know, I don't wanna 211 00:12:19,840 --> 00:12:22,760 Speaker 1: impose upon you or anything, but I was thinking that 212 00:12:22,840 --> 00:12:26,920 Speaker 1: pizza would be great. Okay. So semantically you're throwing in 213 00:12:27,000 --> 00:12:30,439 Speaker 1: some more stuff there to create that distance. And then 214 00:12:30,600 --> 00:12:34,839 Speaker 1: the final strategy is called the off record indirect strategy, 215 00:12:35,000 --> 00:12:37,800 Speaker 1: and this super I love this because it takes a 216 00:12:37,800 --> 00:12:40,800 Speaker 1: lot of the pressure off of you. Um, because you're 217 00:12:40,840 --> 00:12:45,720 Speaker 1: really trying to avoid this direct, face threatening act of 218 00:12:45,840 --> 00:12:49,560 Speaker 1: asking for pizza or whatever it is. Right, Um, So 219 00:12:49,640 --> 00:12:54,160 Speaker 1: what you do is you say something along the lines of, um, hey, 220 00:12:54,240 --> 00:12:58,080 Speaker 1: it's it's it's national pizzaday. I heard that restaurants are 221 00:12:58,080 --> 00:13:00,360 Speaker 1: giving ten percent of their profits to you and a stuff, 222 00:13:01,280 --> 00:13:04,360 Speaker 1: And you're trying to make that person anticipate what you're 223 00:13:04,400 --> 00:13:07,400 Speaker 1: saying and make the decision for you. Yeah, almost make 224 00:13:07,600 --> 00:13:09,840 Speaker 1: them decide to do the thing you want them to do. 225 00:13:09,880 --> 00:13:13,280 Speaker 1: Almost Jedi mind trick them, right, Yeah, Yeah, all all 226 00:13:13,320 --> 00:13:16,320 Speaker 1: in an attempt to avoid the dreaded f t A 227 00:13:16,880 --> 00:13:20,960 Speaker 1: right and in an attempt to secure cooperation. Now, I 228 00:13:21,000 --> 00:13:24,040 Speaker 1: made the analogy of a web earlier, about everyone being 229 00:13:24,080 --> 00:13:26,560 Speaker 1: suspended in this web, and I keep coming back to 230 00:13:26,600 --> 00:13:30,040 Speaker 1: that in part because distance is such a key aspect 231 00:13:30,080 --> 00:13:31,960 Speaker 1: of all of this. And when I talk about distance, 232 00:13:32,000 --> 00:13:36,760 Speaker 1: I'm talking about not only spatial distance as as definitely 233 00:13:36,800 --> 00:13:39,960 Speaker 1: space plays into any polite interaction how far am I 234 00:13:40,040 --> 00:13:46,559 Speaker 1: away from that individual, but also psychological distance, semantic distance UM, 235 00:13:46,760 --> 00:13:49,600 Speaker 1: temporal distance. Uh. It was we'll get into especially when 236 00:13:49,600 --> 00:13:51,599 Speaker 1: you think of in terms of sending a letter or 237 00:13:51,600 --> 00:13:53,800 Speaker 1: an email to somebody, when is it going to be received? 238 00:13:54,559 --> 00:13:59,240 Speaker 1: When in time are you addressing someone? So. Politeness theory 239 00:13:59,360 --> 00:14:04,760 Speaker 1: suggests that three aspects of interpersonal situations are universally related 240 00:14:04,800 --> 00:14:08,000 Speaker 1: to politeness. Number one the relative power of the address 241 00:14:08,000 --> 00:14:11,800 Speaker 1: see over the speaker. Number two the degree of imposition 242 00:14:11,960 --> 00:14:14,360 Speaker 1: of the to be performed act, and number three the 243 00:14:14,440 --> 00:14:18,040 Speaker 1: social distance between the speaker and the address see as such, 244 00:14:18,080 --> 00:14:21,560 Speaker 1: According to the theory, speakers use more polite language when 245 00:14:21,600 --> 00:14:25,880 Speaker 1: addressing individuals with a higher higher status UM than individuals 246 00:14:25,880 --> 00:14:29,560 Speaker 1: with equal or lower status uh. They use more polite 247 00:14:29,600 --> 00:14:32,360 Speaker 1: language when asking for a bigger favor versus a smaller one, 248 00:14:32,360 --> 00:14:35,360 Speaker 1: and when addressing strangers versus familiar people, none of that 249 00:14:35,400 --> 00:14:39,520 Speaker 1: should come as a surprise. Right. You're you're you're dealing 250 00:14:39,520 --> 00:14:42,840 Speaker 1: with a police officer that just pulled you over. You're gonna, generally, 251 00:14:42,880 --> 00:14:45,440 Speaker 1: you're gonna roll out all the polite, polite niceties, right, 252 00:14:45,720 --> 00:14:48,640 Speaker 1: far more than you would um with just you know, 253 00:14:49,000 --> 00:14:52,880 Speaker 1: a teller at a local store. Right. So. A two 254 00:14:52,880 --> 00:14:55,280 Speaker 1: thousand ten paper from a Tel Aviv University Department of 255 00:14:55,280 --> 00:15:00,680 Speaker 1: psychology investigated how politeness affects and is affected by the 256 00:15:00,840 --> 00:15:05,760 Speaker 1: level of constroal temporal distance, of constroal distance, temporal distance, 257 00:15:05,760 --> 00:15:09,360 Speaker 1: and spatial distance, and they predicted that greater politeness would 258 00:15:09,360 --> 00:15:13,560 Speaker 1: be associated with higher levels of greater temporal and spatial distance. 259 00:15:14,160 --> 00:15:18,200 Speaker 1: So in in examining this, they conducted no fewer than 260 00:15:18,240 --> 00:15:21,440 Speaker 1: eight separate studies, and most of these were written evaluations, 261 00:15:21,560 --> 00:15:27,880 Speaker 1: test quizzes. Uh. Pretty un um exciting stuff. But uh, 262 00:15:28,200 --> 00:15:29,880 Speaker 1: but at the end of it, they had some some 263 00:15:29,880 --> 00:15:32,960 Speaker 1: pretty key findings that shed some light on just how 264 00:15:33,000 --> 00:15:36,720 Speaker 1: politeness works within a cultural construct. Uh. They said people 265 00:15:36,760 --> 00:15:40,320 Speaker 1: were more polite when they addressed a person they construed 266 00:15:40,360 --> 00:15:43,720 Speaker 1: in terms of abstract goals and dispositions rather than concrete 267 00:15:43,760 --> 00:15:47,120 Speaker 1: means and situations. So this would be an example. This 268 00:15:47,160 --> 00:15:50,040 Speaker 1: would be, um, uh, you know, a general meeting with 269 00:15:50,120 --> 00:15:53,320 Speaker 1: the boss, as opposed to a we've got to hit 270 00:15:53,360 --> 00:15:55,840 Speaker 1: this deadline? Where are you standing on this project meeting 271 00:15:55,840 --> 00:15:59,520 Speaker 1: with the boss? Okay. They were more polite when they 272 00:15:59,560 --> 00:16:01,880 Speaker 1: expect did the target to receive the message in the 273 00:16:01,960 --> 00:16:07,480 Speaker 1: relatively distant future, when they referred to relatively distant future actions, 274 00:16:07,760 --> 00:16:11,600 Speaker 1: and when they addressed individuals in relatively distant locations. And 275 00:16:11,640 --> 00:16:15,040 Speaker 1: they found that a request to generate polite statements prompted 276 00:16:15,080 --> 00:16:19,040 Speaker 1: participants to use abstract verbs. So the example here would 277 00:16:19,080 --> 00:16:22,400 Speaker 1: be can you help me with some lecture materials is 278 00:16:22,400 --> 00:16:25,360 Speaker 1: coded as more abstract than can you show me some 279 00:16:25,480 --> 00:16:30,280 Speaker 1: lecture materials? Okay, so show is more of a demand. Yeah, 280 00:16:30,320 --> 00:16:32,080 Speaker 1: it's you know, the difference between hey can you help 281 00:16:32,080 --> 00:16:34,360 Speaker 1: me with this? And hey, can you do half of 282 00:16:34,400 --> 00:16:38,040 Speaker 1: this for me? You know, right? Um. They found that 283 00:16:38,120 --> 00:16:41,560 Speaker 1: the polite utterances were judged as pertaining to the relatively 284 00:16:41,600 --> 00:16:44,720 Speaker 1: distant future and were judged as directed to addresses and 285 00:16:44,800 --> 00:16:49,320 Speaker 1: relatively remote locations, which, um, which is internet. You know, 286 00:16:49,360 --> 00:16:51,360 Speaker 1: we can all think of examples where we've may have 287 00:16:51,360 --> 00:16:53,600 Speaker 1: addressed someone and said, hey, if you have time to 288 00:16:53,640 --> 00:16:55,920 Speaker 1: get to this, and no rush on this, but if 289 00:16:55,960 --> 00:16:59,000 Speaker 1: you have a minute, can You may be unloaded dishwasher, 290 00:16:59,400 --> 00:17:02,600 Speaker 1: and you're all heady, sort of pushing that event, that 291 00:17:02,720 --> 00:17:06,200 Speaker 1: unloading of the dishwasher into a more distant future. You're 292 00:17:06,000 --> 00:17:09,760 Speaker 1: you're establishing more temporal distance between you and the person 293 00:17:09,800 --> 00:17:12,919 Speaker 1: you're addressing, even if the dishwasher really needs to be 294 00:17:13,000 --> 00:17:17,160 Speaker 1: unloaded in the immediate future. Yeah, and you are employing 295 00:17:17,160 --> 00:17:21,919 Speaker 1: that negative politeness strategy to right the opposing part. The 296 00:17:22,119 --> 00:17:26,000 Speaker 1: Tel Aviv study um also said that when instructed to 297 00:17:26,040 --> 00:17:29,080 Speaker 1: use polite language and addressing another person, participants preferred a 298 00:17:29,080 --> 00:17:32,800 Speaker 1: relatively large spatial distance from that person. So they're they're 299 00:17:32,800 --> 00:17:35,720 Speaker 1: actually preferred to stand a little a little farther away 300 00:17:35,720 --> 00:17:39,280 Speaker 1: from the individual, or perhaps uh, you know, be isolated 301 00:17:39,280 --> 00:17:42,639 Speaker 1: from them across a larger desk. So, but politeness and 302 00:17:42,680 --> 00:17:45,800 Speaker 1: distance seem to go hand in hand. It's uh, it's 303 00:17:45,840 --> 00:17:47,760 Speaker 1: almost the equivalent I keep thinking of. You know, we 304 00:17:47,760 --> 00:17:50,359 Speaker 1: can't help it make Caveman analogies with any of these 305 00:17:50,400 --> 00:17:55,520 Speaker 1: sort of basic underpinnings of human behavior studies. But I 306 00:17:55,560 --> 00:17:58,120 Speaker 1: think of like of of somebody encountering like an enraged 307 00:17:58,160 --> 00:18:00,119 Speaker 1: ape and you don't want to make eye contact with them. 308 00:18:00,119 --> 00:18:02,200 Speaker 1: You don't want to establish that closeness with them because 309 00:18:02,240 --> 00:18:05,360 Speaker 1: there's danger, so you would do more to distance yourself 310 00:18:05,400 --> 00:18:08,400 Speaker 1: from the danger and employ more politeness. And that's where 311 00:18:08,400 --> 00:18:10,440 Speaker 1: the f t A comes from. Right, That's where the 312 00:18:10,520 --> 00:18:14,480 Speaker 1: drama of that comes from. So that's on the request 313 00:18:14,840 --> 00:18:17,879 Speaker 1: side of things, right, that kind of shows how tentative 314 00:18:18,000 --> 00:18:21,119 Speaker 1: or sometimes how we kind of loathe to even ask 315 00:18:21,240 --> 00:18:24,200 Speaker 1: for help, right, how we do it. So if you 316 00:18:24,240 --> 00:18:27,520 Speaker 1: are on the flip side and someone's asked you something, um, 317 00:18:27,520 --> 00:18:32,720 Speaker 1: how effective are sweet little nothings like thank you? Right? Um? 318 00:18:32,760 --> 00:18:37,360 Speaker 1: Adam Grant and Francesca Gino ran four experiments looking at 319 00:18:37,520 --> 00:18:41,280 Speaker 1: how the thank you sentiment played out with helpers and 320 00:18:41,359 --> 00:18:42,840 Speaker 1: the research, by the way, It is published in the 321 00:18:42,920 --> 00:18:47,639 Speaker 1: June issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 322 00:18:47,680 --> 00:18:51,800 Speaker 1: In the first study, they had sixty nine participants who 323 00:18:51,800 --> 00:18:56,520 Speaker 1: were asked to provide feedback to a fictitious student named Eric. Now, 324 00:18:56,560 --> 00:18:59,479 Speaker 1: the participants didn't know this was a fictitious student. They 325 00:18:59,520 --> 00:19:02,000 Speaker 1: just got some feedback or they just got an email 326 00:19:02,040 --> 00:19:05,720 Speaker 1: from him and so he asked for a little bit 327 00:19:05,760 --> 00:19:08,960 Speaker 1: of feedback on his cover letter for a job opplcation. Now, 328 00:19:09,000 --> 00:19:12,520 Speaker 1: after sending their feedback through by email, that got a 329 00:19:12,560 --> 00:19:17,640 Speaker 1: reply from Eric asking for more help with another cover letter. 330 00:19:18,440 --> 00:19:21,560 Speaker 1: Half of them received this follow up with a thank 331 00:19:21,600 --> 00:19:25,520 Speaker 1: you incorporated into it, and half of them received a 332 00:19:25,600 --> 00:19:28,680 Speaker 1: follow up from Eric that was neutral with no thank 333 00:19:28,720 --> 00:19:34,000 Speaker 1: you in it. So the results were that helped Eric 334 00:19:34,040 --> 00:19:38,760 Speaker 1: in comparison to sixty six when those people received a 335 00:19:38,920 --> 00:19:43,240 Speaker 1: thank you, so already you can see that thirty two 336 00:19:43,240 --> 00:19:45,720 Speaker 1: to sixty six that that was. That's a pretty big 337 00:19:45,920 --> 00:19:49,199 Speaker 1: impetus for trying to help someone again if you receive 338 00:19:49,320 --> 00:19:52,879 Speaker 1: that little small token of gratitude. And this has a 339 00:19:52,960 --> 00:19:56,080 Speaker 1: kind of pay it forward aspect to it, because the 340 00:19:56,160 --> 00:20:02,000 Speaker 1: next day, the same participants received an other um request, 341 00:20:02,119 --> 00:20:06,479 Speaker 1: this time from a fictitious person named Stephen, who asked 342 00:20:06,640 --> 00:20:09,680 Speaker 1: if they could help them, And the percentage who offered 343 00:20:09,720 --> 00:20:14,000 Speaker 1: to help Stephen was twenty five when they had received 344 00:20:14,119 --> 00:20:18,600 Speaker 1: no gratitude from Eric, but this shot up to when 345 00:20:18,640 --> 00:20:22,040 Speaker 1: they had been thanked by Eric. So the politeness of 346 00:20:22,200 --> 00:20:26,040 Speaker 1: Eric's billed over into their willingness to help Stephen exactly. Yeah, 347 00:20:26,119 --> 00:20:28,080 Speaker 1: so it affected that in as that sort of pay 348 00:20:28,119 --> 00:20:30,560 Speaker 1: it forward aspect to it. Now. The third and fourth 349 00:20:30,600 --> 00:20:34,080 Speaker 1: studies yielded similar results, but they used face to face 350 00:20:34,119 --> 00:20:37,879 Speaker 1: scenarios and all had the same idea that the simple 351 00:20:37,960 --> 00:20:41,280 Speaker 1: act of gratitude was helping to ratchet up the feelings 352 00:20:41,359 --> 00:20:46,840 Speaker 1: of self worth in the respondents. In the participants, So 353 00:20:46,920 --> 00:20:50,480 Speaker 1: it's not just a you know, nicety of saying hey, 354 00:20:51,280 --> 00:20:53,880 Speaker 1: thank you so much. It's actually kind of feeding into 355 00:20:53,920 --> 00:20:57,480 Speaker 1: the ego a bit. Yeah, it's interesting to how then 356 00:20:57,560 --> 00:21:00,560 Speaker 1: each interaction is kind of helping to maintain the social 357 00:21:00,680 --> 00:21:05,120 Speaker 1: order of the politeness h algorithm. Yeah, because it's basically saying, 358 00:21:05,160 --> 00:21:08,199 Speaker 1: I'm imposing upon you my apologies. Can you help me? 359 00:21:08,240 --> 00:21:11,000 Speaker 1: Because we live in this cooperative society and that's how 360 00:21:11,040 --> 00:21:13,600 Speaker 1: we've survived as a species. How about it? And the 361 00:21:13,600 --> 00:21:15,560 Speaker 1: other person says, sure, here you go on. The other person, 362 00:21:15,920 --> 00:21:17,719 Speaker 1: thank you for doing that. I know you didn't need to. 363 00:21:20,200 --> 00:21:21,880 Speaker 1: All right, we're gonna take a quick break and when 364 00:21:21,920 --> 00:21:24,400 Speaker 1: we come back, we're going to discuss what's the most 365 00:21:24,400 --> 00:21:26,960 Speaker 1: polite country in the world, what's the least polite country 366 00:21:26,960 --> 00:21:37,720 Speaker 1: in the world, and can you be too polite? All right, 367 00:21:37,760 --> 00:21:41,480 Speaker 1: we're back. What is the most polite country in the world. Now, 368 00:21:42,280 --> 00:21:44,880 Speaker 1: I'm sure everyone has their own sort of individual take 369 00:21:44,920 --> 00:21:48,320 Speaker 1: on this based on their own individual interactions with other 370 00:21:48,400 --> 00:21:53,560 Speaker 1: cultures in other countries. But generally speaking, when people talk 371 00:21:53,560 --> 00:21:59,040 Speaker 1: about polite cultures and phenomenal politeness, they talk about Japanese politeness. 372 00:22:00,320 --> 00:22:02,840 Speaker 1: They are famous for it, yes, and and indeed, when 373 00:22:02,880 --> 00:22:06,879 Speaker 1: we say phenomenal it is studied as a phenomenon um 374 00:22:07,160 --> 00:22:12,760 Speaker 1: by researchers UH. Linguistic politeness in Japanese culture UH has 375 00:22:12,920 --> 00:22:17,960 Speaker 1: especially been an item of study by Stanford's uh Yoshiko Matsumoto, 376 00:22:18,040 --> 00:22:22,040 Speaker 1: Professor of Japanese Language and Linguistics. In her work in 377 00:22:22,080 --> 00:22:25,680 Speaker 1: the late eighties and early nineties, Matsumoto argued that the 378 00:22:25,680 --> 00:22:30,080 Speaker 1: themes of Anglo Saxon individualism in politeness theory doesn't even 379 00:22:30,119 --> 00:22:33,399 Speaker 1: really work with Japanese culture. That the end that the 380 00:22:33,520 --> 00:22:37,000 Speaker 1: very concept of face, particularly that of negative face, is 381 00:22:37,000 --> 00:22:41,359 Speaker 1: is ultimately just kind of alien to the Japanese. She said, 382 00:22:41,440 --> 00:22:44,520 Speaker 1: quote what is of paramount concern to a Japanese is 383 00:22:44,560 --> 00:22:47,639 Speaker 1: not his or her own territory, but the position in 384 00:22:47,720 --> 00:22:51,000 Speaker 1: relation to others in the group and his her acceptance 385 00:22:51,000 --> 00:22:54,440 Speaker 1: of others. Loss of face is associated with the perception 386 00:22:54,480 --> 00:22:58,119 Speaker 1: of others that one has not comprehended and acknowledged the 387 00:22:58,160 --> 00:23:02,960 Speaker 1: structure and hierarchy of the group. Mm hmm. So an 388 00:23:02,960 --> 00:23:05,920 Speaker 1: example of this that we see in in just the 389 00:23:06,000 --> 00:23:11,200 Speaker 1: linguistics of the whole scenario. In English, when we meet somebody, 390 00:23:11,280 --> 00:23:13,680 Speaker 1: what do we say, nice to meet you, Nice to 391 00:23:13,720 --> 00:23:17,280 Speaker 1: meet you, which, of course, is such such an empty statement. 392 00:23:17,600 --> 00:23:21,639 Speaker 1: It's nice, like nice? What is even like it's a 393 00:23:21,680 --> 00:23:25,320 Speaker 1: pleasure to meet you? Is it a pleasure like chocolate 394 00:23:25,400 --> 00:23:29,200 Speaker 1: is a pleasure? Yeah, yeah, it's it's such an empty statement. 395 00:23:29,240 --> 00:23:31,119 Speaker 1: But you're you have to say it. You have to 396 00:23:31,160 --> 00:23:33,800 Speaker 1: say something or some version of it, because it's just 397 00:23:33,880 --> 00:23:35,639 Speaker 1: start part of the contract, part of the back and 398 00:23:35,680 --> 00:23:38,600 Speaker 1: forth is the rules of the game. Okay. Uh. But 399 00:23:38,640 --> 00:23:41,640 Speaker 1: it's certainly a phrase with a lot of distance in it, right, 400 00:23:41,760 --> 00:23:46,000 Speaker 1: it's just merely nice to meet you, to make your acquaintance. Uh, 401 00:23:46,359 --> 00:23:50,280 Speaker 1: lots of spatial distance, lots of symbolic distance, lots of Hey, 402 00:23:50,359 --> 00:23:53,280 Speaker 1: let's start this on a positive foot. Yes we are. 403 00:23:53,440 --> 00:23:58,360 Speaker 1: This is very clinical. Really. However, in Japan, a typical 404 00:23:58,400 --> 00:24:00,920 Speaker 1: form of greeting is the following, and I apologize to 405 00:24:00,960 --> 00:24:04,160 Speaker 1: our our our Japanese speaking listeners. I'm I'm sure I'm 406 00:24:04,200 --> 00:24:08,800 Speaker 1: not going to hit this correctly. Dozu your oshako agamash 407 00:24:08,800 --> 00:24:11,680 Speaker 1: which means I ask you to please treat me well, 408 00:24:12,040 --> 00:24:17,040 Speaker 1: take care of me, which to to foreign ears, uh, 409 00:24:17,160 --> 00:24:20,359 Speaker 1: it might sound a little personal. It sounds very vulnerable 410 00:24:20,480 --> 00:24:24,360 Speaker 1: and very honest. Right, yeah, it's like, hey, take care 411 00:24:24,400 --> 00:24:28,280 Speaker 1: of me, suckle me. You know, I don't think the 412 00:24:28,320 --> 00:24:32,480 Speaker 1: suckle me is okay, but it does have an aspect 413 00:24:32,520 --> 00:24:35,200 Speaker 1: to it that's like, hey, I'm meeting you, I'm I'm vulnerable, 414 00:24:35,440 --> 00:24:40,720 Speaker 1: and um, treat me well. I mean, that's that's much more. 415 00:24:41,119 --> 00:24:44,520 Speaker 1: That resonates a lot more than nice to meet you. Now, 416 00:24:44,600 --> 00:24:47,200 Speaker 1: if you were going to go strictly by politeness theory, however, 417 00:24:47,200 --> 00:24:49,720 Speaker 1: this would be a bit of a negative face and position. Right. 418 00:24:50,040 --> 00:24:53,359 Speaker 1: It lacks the distance of that in that English language politeness, 419 00:24:54,400 --> 00:24:57,479 Speaker 1: But in this we see that the But in this 420 00:24:57,600 --> 00:25:00,560 Speaker 1: it really zeroes in on the focus on inter dependence 421 00:25:00,600 --> 00:25:04,159 Speaker 1: in Japanese culture um and that interdependence even has a 422 00:25:04,200 --> 00:25:07,760 Speaker 1: special name in Japanese culture um Amaru and it uh. 423 00:25:08,040 --> 00:25:11,040 Speaker 1: It's all about placing yourself in another's care as a 424 00:25:11,080 --> 00:25:15,800 Speaker 1: sign of respect. Um also respecting your elders and realizing 425 00:25:15,840 --> 00:25:19,800 Speaker 1: that you're you're ultimately under their protection, under their guidance, 426 00:25:19,880 --> 00:25:22,280 Speaker 1: and therefore it's a it's a sign of respect, and 427 00:25:22,320 --> 00:25:27,399 Speaker 1: you're you're recognizing the existing social hierarchy by saying, please 428 00:25:27,440 --> 00:25:30,479 Speaker 1: take care of me. Okay. So instead of denying the 429 00:25:30,560 --> 00:25:33,800 Speaker 1: threat as hey, nice to meet you. Everything's good here, right, 430 00:25:33,840 --> 00:25:39,000 Speaker 1: there's no threat, it's more an acknowledgement of a possible threat. Yeah, right, hey, 431 00:25:39,119 --> 00:25:41,040 Speaker 1: take care of me. I know you that you could 432 00:25:41,760 --> 00:25:44,400 Speaker 1: not do me a solid here, right, but please do. Yeah. 433 00:25:44,400 --> 00:25:48,520 Speaker 1: And if you fail to recognize this hierarchy, um and 434 00:25:48,520 --> 00:25:52,000 Speaker 1: and the ranking here and the interconnectedness, then you're creating 435 00:25:52,000 --> 00:25:57,159 Speaker 1: an impression of ignorance or lack of self control, and 436 00:25:57,200 --> 00:26:01,000 Speaker 1: then you lose face for real. Huh. Okay. Now, in 437 00:26:01,119 --> 00:26:05,000 Speaker 1: terms of the least polite country, this one is a 438 00:26:05,080 --> 00:26:09,120 Speaker 1: lot harder to get to a lot of people. When 439 00:26:09,160 --> 00:26:12,320 Speaker 1: it's represented in the media, at least frame it as 440 00:26:12,800 --> 00:26:15,840 Speaker 1: sort of a tourist goes to this country and they 441 00:26:15,840 --> 00:26:19,800 Speaker 1: find these people to be rude. Well, that's erroneous in 442 00:26:19,920 --> 00:26:22,400 Speaker 1: terms of logic anyway, because it's you know, that sort 443 00:26:22,400 --> 00:26:28,720 Speaker 1: of experience is freighted with cultural expectations and violations of norms. Right, 444 00:26:28,840 --> 00:26:31,080 Speaker 1: So my norm in the United States is gonna be 445 00:26:31,080 --> 00:26:35,280 Speaker 1: different this one else's norm in France, for instance. So 446 00:26:35,600 --> 00:26:37,919 Speaker 1: the best way to get at this is again to 447 00:26:38,000 --> 00:26:42,200 Speaker 1: go more towards that direct indirect nature of language. And 448 00:26:42,640 --> 00:26:47,840 Speaker 1: this is really plumped by Eva Ogerman's excellent article Politeness 449 00:26:48,080 --> 00:26:52,680 Speaker 1: and Indirectness Across Cultures A comparison of English, German, Polish 450 00:26:52,680 --> 00:26:56,880 Speaker 1: and Russian requests. Again interact direct and requests that we're 451 00:26:56,920 --> 00:26:59,959 Speaker 1: dealing with here, and she writes that English and German, 452 00:27:00,080 --> 00:27:04,000 Speaker 1: for example, tend to contain the more distancing and polite 453 00:27:04,119 --> 00:27:08,159 Speaker 1: indirect request, whereas Russian and Polish is more direct. She 454 00:27:08,200 --> 00:27:11,760 Speaker 1: writes quote. What Brown and Levinson's theory does not account 455 00:27:11,800 --> 00:27:17,240 Speaker 1: for is that some cultures appreciate pragmatic clarity while associating 456 00:27:17,280 --> 00:27:21,280 Speaker 1: directness with honesty. Indirect requests, on the other hand, not 457 00:27:21,400 --> 00:27:25,840 Speaker 1: only increase quote the interpretive demands on the hearer. Uh. 458 00:27:25,920 --> 00:27:28,399 Speaker 1: In other words, you have to really listen carefully if 459 00:27:28,440 --> 00:27:31,320 Speaker 1: I'm saying, hey, it's National Pizza Day, to try to 460 00:27:31,359 --> 00:27:34,560 Speaker 1: figure out what it is that I'm hinting at, she says, 461 00:27:34,560 --> 00:27:37,760 Speaker 1: but can also quote make the speaker sound devious and 462 00:27:37,800 --> 00:27:41,080 Speaker 1: the nepulative. Indeed, coming back to the Jetti mind trick thing, 463 00:27:41,119 --> 00:27:43,240 Speaker 1: why are you trying to trick me into thinking pizza 464 00:27:43,320 --> 00:27:45,399 Speaker 1: is a great idea when really you just want me 465 00:27:45,440 --> 00:27:47,879 Speaker 1: to you just want pizza. Right, So she's saying in 466 00:27:47,920 --> 00:27:53,400 Speaker 1: this example, um, you know, the Russian here isn't necessarily 467 00:27:53,560 --> 00:27:58,639 Speaker 1: discounting that direct approach because that feels more honest. And 468 00:27:58,880 --> 00:28:01,120 Speaker 1: she also says, a Russian here or does not necessarily 469 00:28:01,240 --> 00:28:05,320 Speaker 1: regard a request as an imposition on her or his 470 00:28:05,560 --> 00:28:09,800 Speaker 1: personal freedom and a potential refuse. It involves less face 471 00:28:09,920 --> 00:28:13,000 Speaker 1: loss for a Russian speaker than it does for somebody 472 00:28:13,080 --> 00:28:16,720 Speaker 1: with an Anglo Saxon cultural background. In other words, if 473 00:28:16,800 --> 00:28:19,440 Speaker 1: you make a request and the person says no, then 474 00:28:19,440 --> 00:28:23,159 Speaker 1: it's not as heart wrenching as it would be in 475 00:28:23,160 --> 00:28:27,680 Speaker 1: in an Anglo Saxon exchange. It's interesting too, uh. You know, 476 00:28:27,720 --> 00:28:30,600 Speaker 1: when you think of Russian culture, one of the sort 477 00:28:30,640 --> 00:28:34,160 Speaker 1: of stereotypes that comes to mind is very close personal 478 00:28:34,359 --> 00:28:37,920 Speaker 1: interaction during greetings, right, kisses on the face even uh, 479 00:28:38,080 --> 00:28:40,280 Speaker 1: you know one one man kissing another on the face, 480 00:28:40,400 --> 00:28:43,680 Speaker 1: or or you know Vladimir Putin kissing a small boy, 481 00:28:43,720 --> 00:28:47,760 Speaker 1: and it's it's all perfectly acceptable. Well, you're right, So 482 00:28:47,880 --> 00:28:50,920 Speaker 1: you see that correlation with there's a directness with language, 483 00:28:50,920 --> 00:28:53,880 Speaker 1: and there's a directness with personal space. So the nonverable 484 00:28:53,920 --> 00:28:57,480 Speaker 1: a viable matchup. Yeah. Meanwhile, in the in Japanese cultures, 485 00:28:57,520 --> 00:29:01,200 Speaker 1: you definitely see more of a uh a spatial distance 486 00:29:01,520 --> 00:29:04,280 Speaker 1: in interactions as a whole. And yet both of them 487 00:29:04,320 --> 00:29:06,160 Speaker 1: you would think of them as being completely different, but 488 00:29:06,200 --> 00:29:09,280 Speaker 1: both of them are treading on the concept of honesty 489 00:29:10,240 --> 00:29:13,440 Speaker 1: and and ultimately, like no, no no matter what particular culture 490 00:29:13,480 --> 00:29:16,520 Speaker 1: you're looking at, and their various levels of politeness, their 491 00:29:16,600 --> 00:29:20,000 Speaker 1: various semantic systems of politeness, I mean, it's all coming 492 00:29:20,000 --> 00:29:24,240 Speaker 1: down to maintaining that webbing, maintaining that system of interactions 493 00:29:24,280 --> 00:29:29,000 Speaker 1: that keeps everyone sane and uh and uh and and 494 00:29:29,000 --> 00:29:32,680 Speaker 1: and functional. Right. So, in this respect, there's a worth 495 00:29:32,800 --> 00:29:36,360 Speaker 1: to being agreeable, right to putting yourself out there, to 496 00:29:36,400 --> 00:29:40,080 Speaker 1: being polite. But the question then comes up, could you 497 00:29:40,120 --> 00:29:46,479 Speaker 1: be too agreeable? Could you be too almost obedient? Ah? Yes? Uh? 498 00:29:46,520 --> 00:29:51,000 Speaker 1: And in this week get into Stanley Milgram's obedient study, 499 00:29:51,040 --> 00:29:54,080 Speaker 1: which I'm sure a lot of you are familiar with already, 500 00:29:54,120 --> 00:29:56,360 Speaker 1: at least you know surface level and of course, this 501 00:29:56,400 --> 00:30:01,520 Speaker 1: is where we end up discussing the Holocaust while examining politeness. This, 502 00:30:01,640 --> 00:30:04,360 Speaker 1: uh this study from Milgrom came up in the nineteen sixties, 503 00:30:04,360 --> 00:30:07,560 Speaker 1: particularly the experiments began in July ninety one, just three 504 00:30:07,640 --> 00:30:10,400 Speaker 1: months after the start of the trial of nerds of 505 00:30:10,440 --> 00:30:14,600 Speaker 1: German Nazi war criminal Adolf Aikmann in Jerusalem. So the 506 00:30:14,680 --> 00:30:18,520 Speaker 1: idea here, of course is we're millions of indige of 507 00:30:18,560 --> 00:30:22,640 Speaker 1: individuals just following orders when it came to the Holocaust, 508 00:30:23,000 --> 00:30:27,120 Speaker 1: or were they actual accomplices? Could could you essentially just 509 00:30:27,160 --> 00:30:30,600 Speaker 1: be so polite and fall in line and in doing so, 510 00:30:30,880 --> 00:30:34,560 Speaker 1: you know, lead straight to the gates of hell. Uh So, 511 00:30:34,600 --> 00:30:38,040 Speaker 1: that's what he decided to examine in a series of experiments. 512 00:30:38,080 --> 00:30:40,560 Speaker 1: And it's it's worth noting that there were nineteen of 513 00:30:40,560 --> 00:30:43,120 Speaker 1: these in all. This wasn't just one single experiment, but 514 00:30:43,160 --> 00:30:45,680 Speaker 1: they were all kind of shades of the same the 515 00:30:46,040 --> 00:30:49,000 Speaker 1: same um. But they are all sort of shades of 516 00:30:49,040 --> 00:30:53,400 Speaker 1: the same format. Okay. Uh So, basically, particularly with the 517 00:30:53,440 --> 00:30:56,200 Speaker 1: most well known example of the experiment, which I think 518 00:30:56,240 --> 00:31:00,080 Speaker 1: was Experiment five. Yet forty men recruited using newspay of 519 00:31:00,080 --> 00:31:02,840 Speaker 1: her ads, paid four dollars and fifty each. They were 520 00:31:02,840 --> 00:31:05,640 Speaker 1: brought in uh and divided into groups. So you had 521 00:31:05,720 --> 00:31:08,880 Speaker 1: teachers who were asked to pull a lever and administer 522 00:31:09,000 --> 00:31:13,600 Speaker 1: a shock every time a learner answered a question incorrectly. 523 00:31:14,000 --> 00:31:17,560 Speaker 1: Learners were heard but not seen, and uh they were 524 00:31:17,720 --> 00:31:20,360 Speaker 1: part of the experiment. There wasn't really somebody being shocked 525 00:31:20,400 --> 00:31:22,480 Speaker 1: in the next room. They were just pretending to be shocked, 526 00:31:22,520 --> 00:31:25,480 Speaker 1: you know. All the while the learners are complaining about 527 00:31:25,480 --> 00:31:29,600 Speaker 1: the shocks, which increased by fifteen volts for each wrong answer. 528 00:31:30,440 --> 00:31:32,960 Speaker 1: At the three volte level, the learners bang on the 529 00:31:32,960 --> 00:31:36,280 Speaker 1: wall for release, and beyond this there's only silence. And 530 00:31:36,280 --> 00:31:39,880 Speaker 1: at this point the experiment or the authority figure in 531 00:31:39,880 --> 00:31:43,680 Speaker 1: the scenario instructs the participant to treat this silence as 532 00:31:43,720 --> 00:31:49,959 Speaker 1: an incorrect response and deliver a further shock to the learner. Okay, 533 00:31:50,200 --> 00:31:54,200 Speaker 1: so it's a pretty kind of diabolical scenario. Going into this, 534 00:31:54,240 --> 00:31:56,280 Speaker 1: it was predicted that no more than three out of 535 00:31:56,320 --> 00:31:59,280 Speaker 1: a hundred participants would actually deliver that maximum shock to 536 00:31:59,360 --> 00:32:02,920 Speaker 1: a silent learner. Only three. That was that was one 537 00:32:02,960 --> 00:32:06,680 Speaker 1: of the predictions going in. In reality, six of the 538 00:32:06,680 --> 00:32:10,680 Speaker 1: participants in Milgram's best known study again experiment five delivered 539 00:32:10,720 --> 00:32:14,280 Speaker 1: the maximum shock thirty five percent. Then we're refusing to 540 00:32:14,320 --> 00:32:17,600 Speaker 1: administer that highest shock level to this individual who is 541 00:32:17,640 --> 00:32:23,280 Speaker 1: presumably unconscious or even dead following these previous shocks. Now, 542 00:32:23,320 --> 00:32:26,160 Speaker 1: the obedience rates were different depending on the experiment. Again 543 00:32:26,160 --> 00:32:28,480 Speaker 1: there were there were nineteen of them, and they be 544 00:32:28,680 --> 00:32:31,280 Speaker 1: varied with the scenario a bit. In each one, obedience 545 00:32:31,360 --> 00:32:33,680 Speaker 1: rates dropped to forty seven point five percent in a 546 00:32:33,760 --> 00:32:39,040 Speaker 1: Rundown apartment building environment versus a gale campus environment for 547 00:32:39,040 --> 00:32:42,000 Speaker 1: for experiment number five. And then there was yet another 548 00:32:42,080 --> 00:32:44,719 Speaker 1: experiment in which the learners only had to take notes 549 00:32:45,240 --> 00:32:48,280 Speaker 1: about the shock, they didn't have to actually administer it, 550 00:32:48,680 --> 00:32:52,560 Speaker 1: and in that obedience rates hit ninety two point five percent. 551 00:32:52,800 --> 00:32:55,920 Speaker 1: So they were just bureaucratically a part of the shock, 552 00:32:55,960 --> 00:32:59,360 Speaker 1: and therefore they were more obedient. So the more distance, 553 00:33:00,520 --> 00:33:03,880 Speaker 1: the more they could sort of objectify that person, yeah, exactly, 554 00:33:03,960 --> 00:33:06,360 Speaker 1: and then carry that out. So how this plays into 555 00:33:06,400 --> 00:33:10,480 Speaker 1: politeness theory and politeness across cultures. Milgram was essentially an 556 00:33:10,520 --> 00:33:14,760 Speaker 1: evolutionary psychologist, and the central idea here is that there 557 00:33:14,840 --> 00:33:19,080 Speaker 1: is a survival advantage to submitting to authority. He recognized 558 00:33:19,120 --> 00:33:23,840 Speaker 1: the humans evolved a psychological mechanism for obedience, which he 559 00:33:23,880 --> 00:33:27,520 Speaker 1: called the agentic state. And in this state, normal moral 560 00:33:27,600 --> 00:33:31,840 Speaker 1: inhibitions are bypassed and we become a mere agent of 561 00:33:31,840 --> 00:33:34,360 Speaker 1: an authority. So the idea here is that there is 562 00:33:34,480 --> 00:33:37,760 Speaker 1: there's an evolutionary advantage to politeness, there's an evolutionary advantage 563 00:33:37,800 --> 00:33:42,080 Speaker 1: to staying in line with the social norms and obeying 564 00:33:42,120 --> 00:33:46,160 Speaker 1: the authority figures that are sending you orders, suggestions, what 565 00:33:46,240 --> 00:33:49,720 Speaker 1: have you okay now? To explore this, u there was 566 00:33:49,720 --> 00:33:53,000 Speaker 1: an extension of the Milgram study by researchers at the 567 00:33:53,080 --> 00:33:56,680 Speaker 1: University of Graham Noble Alps in France, published in the 568 00:33:56,680 --> 00:33:59,160 Speaker 1: two thousand and fourteen edition of the Journal of Personality. 569 00:33:59,160 --> 00:34:02,560 Speaker 1: And they wanted to see which personality types were more 570 00:34:02,720 --> 00:34:05,880 Speaker 1: or less likely to obey orders that resulted in pain 571 00:34:05,960 --> 00:34:09,800 Speaker 1: to others. And so participants were thirty five males, thirty 572 00:34:09,840 --> 00:34:14,279 Speaker 1: one females fifty four from the general population and they 573 00:34:14,280 --> 00:34:18,000 Speaker 1: were contacted by phone eight months after their participation in 574 00:34:18,040 --> 00:34:24,200 Speaker 1: a study transposing Milgrom's obedience paradigm. And these interviews were 575 00:34:24,239 --> 00:34:28,440 Speaker 1: presented as opinion polls with no stated ties to the 576 00:34:28,520 --> 00:34:33,640 Speaker 1: earlier experiment, and the personality was assessed by the Big 577 00:34:33,680 --> 00:34:36,759 Speaker 1: Five Mini Markers questionnaire, which was also used in the 578 00:34:36,760 --> 00:34:42,319 Speaker 1: Millgram studies, and this includes categories of personality like conscientiousness 579 00:34:42,360 --> 00:34:48,520 Speaker 1: and agreeableness. Now, political orientation and social activism were also measured, 580 00:34:49,200 --> 00:34:54,880 Speaker 1: and the results confirmed hypotheses that the conscientiousness and agreeableness 581 00:34:55,080 --> 00:34:59,960 Speaker 1: would be associated with willingness to administer high intensity electric 582 00:35:00,040 --> 00:35:04,479 Speaker 1: shocks to a victim. Um. The subjects what we're seeing 583 00:35:04,560 --> 00:35:09,279 Speaker 1: here again had a more agreeable and conscientious personality the 584 00:35:09,360 --> 00:35:13,080 Speaker 1: sort of disposition, and they were more likely to follow 585 00:35:13,120 --> 00:35:16,800 Speaker 1: the orders given to them, um, even if it meant 586 00:35:16,960 --> 00:35:22,279 Speaker 1: delivering these painful shocks so that they didn't go against authorities. 587 00:35:22,280 --> 00:35:24,400 Speaker 1: So just sort of underscores all of what you were 588 00:35:24,400 --> 00:35:28,120 Speaker 1: talking about with the Milgram studies. Uh, now this is interesting. 589 00:35:28,719 --> 00:35:33,280 Speaker 1: People with more left wing political leanings were less likely 590 00:35:33,480 --> 00:35:37,239 Speaker 1: to deliver the painful shocks, and a particular group of 591 00:35:37,239 --> 00:35:42,000 Speaker 1: study participants were described as holding study and refusing to 592 00:35:42,080 --> 00:35:45,920 Speaker 1: harm others. And this group was women who had previously 593 00:35:45,960 --> 00:35:51,839 Speaker 1: participated in rebellious political activism. And I think all of 594 00:35:51,840 --> 00:35:55,959 Speaker 1: this kind of all the circles back to why why 595 00:35:56,040 --> 00:36:01,719 Speaker 1: do atrocities happen? Does it? It's politeness? Really, factor that 596 00:36:01,840 --> 00:36:07,680 Speaker 1: much into obedience. Can it be so extreme that, um, 597 00:36:07,719 --> 00:36:12,000 Speaker 1: that it ties back to this revival instinct of authorities 598 00:36:12,040 --> 00:36:14,560 Speaker 1: and obedience. Yeah, I mean, of course it's gonna it's 599 00:36:14,560 --> 00:36:18,480 Speaker 1: gonna vary depending on the particular cultural situation as well 600 00:36:18,520 --> 00:36:22,240 Speaker 1: as the political climate. Right, But it's all really fascinating 601 00:36:22,280 --> 00:36:24,680 Speaker 1: when you when you look at politeness in this way. 602 00:36:24,760 --> 00:36:27,040 Speaker 1: It's not just the pleas and thank you is that 603 00:36:27,080 --> 00:36:29,279 Speaker 1: we try to instill in children, you know, for good 604 00:36:29,280 --> 00:36:33,520 Speaker 1: reason because they will get more help. Um. But there 605 00:36:33,560 --> 00:36:36,560 Speaker 1: there's a lot more going under the cover here of 606 00:36:36,719 --> 00:36:39,440 Speaker 1: the semantics of it. Yeah. Indeed, I mean we are 607 00:36:39,480 --> 00:36:42,680 Speaker 1: talking about something that kind of to to an extent, 608 00:36:42,719 --> 00:36:45,279 Speaker 1: holds us all together, or at least allows us to 609 00:36:45,800 --> 00:36:48,319 Speaker 1: work within a given culture. And I think that's why 610 00:36:48,360 --> 00:36:54,800 Speaker 1: you see too in computer mediated communication, talking about email 611 00:36:55,160 --> 00:36:58,080 Speaker 1: and talking about Facebook, Twitter, so on and so forth, 612 00:36:58,120 --> 00:37:01,840 Speaker 1: you see less of a regard for the feelings of 613 00:37:01,920 --> 00:37:05,040 Speaker 1: others because you don't have that sort of you know, 614 00:37:05,160 --> 00:37:07,440 Speaker 1: face to face interaction. You don't have to see that 615 00:37:07,640 --> 00:37:11,560 Speaker 1: the look of spoilage across someone's face when you've said 616 00:37:11,560 --> 00:37:16,360 Speaker 1: something terrible. Indeed, Yeah, I mean, the uh, the modern 617 00:37:16,840 --> 00:37:20,960 Speaker 1: world of email and online reviews and uh facebook comments. 618 00:37:20,960 --> 00:37:23,319 Speaker 1: That really does skew everything a bit, especially when you 619 00:37:23,360 --> 00:37:26,680 Speaker 1: start thinking again about those factors of of distance in space, 620 00:37:27,120 --> 00:37:31,520 Speaker 1: distance and time, um, and how that factors into you 621 00:37:31,680 --> 00:37:34,279 Speaker 1: thinking about the other person on the other end of 622 00:37:34,320 --> 00:37:38,000 Speaker 1: a given email review. Yeah, and again it's it's occupying 623 00:37:38,040 --> 00:37:41,080 Speaker 1: the headspace of the other person and kind of ties 624 00:37:41,120 --> 00:37:44,280 Speaker 1: back to empathy as well. And I was thinking, um, 625 00:37:44,320 --> 00:37:48,160 Speaker 1: even when when you're thinking about the cadence of UM 626 00:37:48,320 --> 00:37:52,040 Speaker 1: two people talking, there are specific rules in place there, 627 00:37:52,520 --> 00:37:57,480 Speaker 1: rules that even whales observe. Yes, this is pretty interesting 628 00:37:57,560 --> 00:38:00,480 Speaker 1: course of Whales are known uh for some of their 629 00:38:00,480 --> 00:38:03,680 Speaker 1: their whale songs right there communicating uh with each other 630 00:38:03,719 --> 00:38:09,560 Speaker 1: across vast distances. Uh. And what happens when those calls overlap, right, 631 00:38:09,880 --> 00:38:14,200 Speaker 1: those conversations overlap, while, as it turns out, the whales 632 00:38:14,200 --> 00:38:18,040 Speaker 1: are actually uh doing what they can to remain polite 633 00:38:18,120 --> 00:38:22,839 Speaker 1: and courteous of those other conversations. Yeah. Natalia Ciaro Viskia 634 00:38:22,960 --> 00:38:26,520 Speaker 1: of the University of Louisiana at Lafayette and her colleagues 635 00:38:26,560 --> 00:38:31,840 Speaker 1: discovered that whales change the intervals between their echolocating clicks 636 00:38:32,000 --> 00:38:35,120 Speaker 1: in a way that seems to prevent cluttering the echoes 637 00:38:35,760 --> 00:38:38,560 Speaker 1: from these other calls, and she says, quote in other words, 638 00:38:39,040 --> 00:38:42,560 Speaker 1: whales are polite listeners. They do not interrupt each other, 639 00:38:42,880 --> 00:38:46,400 Speaker 1: which would be really important because there's there's uh information 640 00:38:46,480 --> 00:38:50,120 Speaker 1: that's trying to be uh disseminated here, and if you 641 00:38:50,160 --> 00:38:54,200 Speaker 1: don't get the information, well, hey, that might affect your survival. Yeah. 642 00:38:54,200 --> 00:38:56,320 Speaker 1: I mean it's the sort of the the Jinga tower 643 00:38:56,520 --> 00:39:00,279 Speaker 1: of communication, and certainly the human Jinga Tower of of 644 00:39:00,320 --> 00:39:04,600 Speaker 1: the intercommunication is far more complicated. Uh, but but the 645 00:39:04,680 --> 00:39:09,040 Speaker 1: simplified whale model uh illustrates that that anytime there is 646 00:39:09,239 --> 00:39:13,120 Speaker 1: uh there there's there's there's a social system in place, 647 00:39:13,600 --> 00:39:16,440 Speaker 1: you have to have at least some level of politeness 648 00:39:16,480 --> 00:39:18,440 Speaker 1: to make it work right or else you're going to 649 00:39:18,480 --> 00:39:22,000 Speaker 1: be shunned. Yeah, and that's the really the crux of 650 00:39:22,040 --> 00:39:24,279 Speaker 1: all of this, whether it's from an authority figure or 651 00:39:24,360 --> 00:39:27,000 Speaker 1: from the group. Um, which of course led us to 652 00:39:27,040 --> 00:39:29,440 Speaker 1: wonder if there are any whale jerks out there that 653 00:39:29,719 --> 00:39:31,960 Speaker 1: have been ejected from the group because I keep talking 654 00:39:32,000 --> 00:39:36,480 Speaker 1: over the other members. Yeah, because yeah, we were talking 655 00:39:36,480 --> 00:39:40,719 Speaker 1: earlier about this, like, to what extent is whale society 656 00:39:40,800 --> 00:39:43,640 Speaker 1: such that a rude whale just simply dies out and 657 00:39:43,640 --> 00:39:47,600 Speaker 1: and therefore nature selects for polite whales, whereas in human culture, 658 00:39:48,120 --> 00:39:52,560 Speaker 1: you you know, unmistakably you have individuals who uh don't 659 00:39:52,600 --> 00:39:55,600 Speaker 1: really work well in polite society, but perhaps they have 660 00:39:55,680 --> 00:39:57,920 Speaker 1: a skill that still makes them very valuable, you know, 661 00:39:58,320 --> 00:40:01,440 Speaker 1: like that, you know, the guy at the prime primordial 662 00:40:01,480 --> 00:40:04,560 Speaker 1: camp fire, and then maybe not primorial, like like some 663 00:40:04,600 --> 00:40:07,040 Speaker 1: guy at a prehistoric campfire. Maybe he's not great about 664 00:40:07,120 --> 00:40:10,480 Speaker 1: joining in with the post meal conversation, but he's the 665 00:40:10,520 --> 00:40:13,759 Speaker 1: best at grounding down uh, you know, weasel bones into 666 00:40:13,960 --> 00:40:16,680 Speaker 1: necessary paste. So you've got to keep around. And that's 667 00:40:16,760 --> 00:40:21,080 Speaker 1: why we developed willful inattention, as we discussed in that 668 00:40:21,160 --> 00:40:27,359 Speaker 1: episode about willfully ignoring someone. Indeed. All right, so there 669 00:40:27,400 --> 00:40:29,840 Speaker 1: you have a politeness. You know, hopefully you have a 670 00:40:30,320 --> 00:40:33,719 Speaker 1: more nuanced understanding and appreciation for all those little niceties 671 00:40:33,760 --> 00:40:36,120 Speaker 1: to fill our life and to fill our interactions. Now, 672 00:40:36,640 --> 00:40:38,120 Speaker 1: in the meantime, do you want to check out more 673 00:40:38,120 --> 00:40:40,600 Speaker 1: episodes of Stuff to Blow your Mind? Head on over 674 00:40:40,600 --> 00:40:42,680 Speaker 1: to stuff to Blow your Mind dot com. That's where 675 00:40:42,680 --> 00:40:45,600 Speaker 1: we'll find all of the episodes, videos, blog post links 676 00:40:45,600 --> 00:40:48,120 Speaker 1: out to social media accounts you name it, and If 677 00:40:48,160 --> 00:40:51,400 Speaker 1: you have some cordial, genteel thoughts that you would like 678 00:40:51,440 --> 00:40:53,160 Speaker 1: to share with us, we would love to hear them. 679 00:40:53,280 --> 00:40:55,520 Speaker 1: You can email us at below the Mind at how 680 00:40:55,520 --> 00:41:01,960 Speaker 1: stuff works dot com. For more on this and thousands 681 00:41:01,960 --> 00:41:10,239 Speaker 1: of other topics, visit how stuff works dot com