We're nervous a lot--I know I certainly am. And mostly, I think, I'm nervous because I don't want people to think thoughts of me that are not truly accurate descriptors of who I really *feel* I am, you know, my guts and glory and real self and all. And that's odd, because other people probably pressure themselves to some degree like this too, so know that I'm doing it. But if we're both being careful to do or say something that wouldn't ruffle the feathers of the other person (so as to preserve our own self-identity), and we both know it, doesn't our knowledge somehow defeat the purpose. To wit, the purpose is for people to think that my actions/behaviors/thoughts are naturally, organically, good and true, and that I'm real and talented and skilled and smart in a way that is not manufactured, i.e. in a way that I did't first think about (too much) and then proffer out to the world, like some alien.
To say it directly: I think people who are good at this game are very good at managing impressions, making other people feel welcome and listened to, think about what they say as a way so as to provide definite mini-conclusions, and provide generally egalitarian viewpoints. To wit: we're all mini politicians. We want to get the most votes. This isn't a game for pure fun, either, though one can have fun playing it. It is instead a game with real consequences--though the million dollar question is how our machinations and strategies parlay into consequences/outcomes.
So to answer the question. I'm nervous a lot because other people are nervous a lot, because our collective nervousness is more appealing than revealing a calculated strategy, and allows for multiple "reads" on a situation, thus allowing coalitions to form out of somewhat abstract statements.
Is the reason that nervousness signals we're not being calculating because the signs of nervousness are to a large extent outside of our conscious control?
ReplyDeleteIn terms of facilitating coalition-forming, it seems to me that the possibility of multiple reads on a situation is simply the default state in a world where it is impossible to process all information relevant to a given interaction. I don't see how collective nervousness fits into this at all.
The first question is spot on, I think, and what I'm probably trying to say above is that we can control how nervous we are to a large extent, or that we learn to be nervous in certain situations as a way to signal. However, if nerves aren't under our control, or aren't perceived as under our control, then it is also plausible that this helps us signal our lack of calculation.
ReplyDeleteAs far as coalition forming: perhaps nerves heightens our indirect speech and actions in a way that allows those who view or interact with us (who consume our behavior) more latitude in interpreting our actions favorably. I'm not sure.
"we can control how nervous we are to a large extent, or that we learn to be nervous in certain situations as a way to signal."
ReplyDeleteSignal what though? If it is common knowledge that we can learn to be nervous, then nervousness should be perceived as just another sign of dishonesty.
"As far as coalition forming: perhaps nerves heightens our indirect speech and actions in a way that allows those who view or interact with us (who consume our behavior) more latitude in interpreting our actions favorably."
Yes, but my problem with this line of argument is that it only speaks to nervousness being sufficient for facilitating coalitions. It doesn't even address the question of why it would be necessary.
Yes, if it is common knowledge that we can learn to be nervous . . . what you say is undoubtably true. My response won't be satisfactory, but here it is: either a) we can learn to be more nervous than we might biologically be, b) we can learn to control our nerves, or c) we learn the outward signs of nervousness and incorporate them into some situations strategically so that they mask what might otherwise be a strong preference. Of course C is the most subtle.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the sufficient/necessary distinction: sure. I don't think it would be necessary for all coalitions to form. However, I do think it plays a strong role in the kind of soft people skills that I'll blog about in a minute. And those skills aid in coalitions and success.
"...we learn the outward signs of nervousness and incorporate them into some situations strategically so that they mask what might otherwise be a strong preference."
ReplyDeleteOK, but you don't even try to explain why we use nervousness for this, as opposed to thousands of other behaviors/reactions that could conceivably do the same. For example, why couldn't we have evolved to simply not show preferences when we don't want to?
"As far as the sufficient/necessary distinction: sure. I don't think it would be necessary for all coalitions to form."
This isn't what I was applying this distinction to at all. You're making an argument that some trait X is used or has evolved to perform some function F. In order to make the argument you're showing that X does indeed perform F. This is incomplete.
Any such explanation of X in terms of F must consist of two parts: that X does F (sufficiency), and that, in situations when X is used to do F, X is either the only thing that does F, or better than any other thing that does F. Your argument is missing the necessity part in its entirety.
It isn't that nervousness alone is the only thing or the best thing that accomplishes a masking of preferences, but that it is a tool in a war chest of tools. We already have thousands of other behaviors/reactions that do the same thing (or the blending of behaviors), and the value of picking one or the other depends on how receptive our audience will be to it. Humor works at times when nerves aren't that helpful, and anger gets the job done with a different crowd. Then there's more subtle blends of emotion that works to attract still others. At times nervousness isn't needed at all, or isn't useful, and at other times it might pay to show one's serves as a sort of deference to authority.
ReplyDeleteOK. Do you have any hypotheses as to what type of situations nervousness works better in than humor or anger?
ReplyDelete