That's Not What I Meant!: How Conversational Style Makes or Breaks Relationships

by Deborah Tannen

As the novelist E. M. Forster put it in A Passage to India, “a pause in the wrong place, an intonation misunderstood, and a whole conversation went awry.” When conversations go awry, we look for causes, and usually find them by blaming others or ourselves. The most generous-minded among us blame the relationship. This book shows how much of this blame is misplaced. Bad feelings are often the result of misunderstandings that arise from differences in conversational style.

You can be nice to someone either by showing your involvement or by not imposing. And you can be mean by refusing to show involvement—cutting her off—of by imposing—being “inconsiderate.”

Partners in intimate relationships often differ about how they balance involvement and independence. There are those who show love by making sure the other eats right, dresses warmly, or doesn’t drive alone at night. There are others who feel this is imposing and treating them like children. And there are those who feel that their partners don’t care about them because they aren’t concerned with what they eat, wear, or do. What may be meant as a show of respect for their independence is taken as lack of involvement— which it also might be.

Samantha and Maxwell might feel differently if the other acted differently. He may want to be left alone precisely because she gives him so much attention, and she may want attention precisely because he leaves her alone. With a doting spouse she might find herself craving to be left alone, and with an independent spouse, he might find himself craving attention. It’s important to remember that others’ ways of talking to you are partly a reaction to your style, just as your style with them is partly a reaction to their style—with you.

And in interpreting what others say, we assume they mean what we would mean if we said the same thing in the same way.

The American confessed to feeling what I believe most Americans would feel if a next-door neighbor passed within a few feet without acknowledging their presence— snubbed. But he realized that the intention was not rudeness by omitting to show involvement, but politeness by not imposing. The fate of the earth depends on cross-cultural communication. Nations must reach agreements, and agreements are made by individual representatives of nations sitting down and talking to each other—

Closeness threatens our lives as individuals, and our real differences as individuals threaten our needs to be connected to other people.

Since signals such as pitch shifts (as well as loudness and pacing) are also signs of emotional expression, it is probably no coincidence that women tend to use greater shifts in pitch than men, and that women are often perceived as overemotional.

I see i see. So it's not the actions itself that makes women seen as overemotional. But it’s also the way we speak, the expression we use to interact with society. Cool cool. Good to know that we have to be mute and cold to compete in a world made for men. A world where it is traditionally patriotical💀

In a dinner-table conversation I taped and studied among Chad and David and Jonathan and Nora, Chad and David kept stumbling and stalling. One of the reasons, I discovered in the study, was the loud responses they were getting from Jonathan and Nora—responses that, ironically, were intended to encourage them. For example, Chad made a point and Nora yelled, loud and fast, “WOW!” and Jonathan exclaimed, “OH, MY GOD!” They were using loudness and fast pace to show that they were really listening, that they got the point, and that it was a point well worth getting. But instead of encouraging Chad, these expressive responses pulled him up short. The loudness and quickness scared him and made him stop to find out what had caused the outburst.

That happens to me and my friend, Leila. She keeps stumbling because i keep signaling her that I'm listening and am invested in whatever she's saying.

Lucy’s family tend to ask questions to show interest, but many people are more like Richard’s family. For example, Lucy’s sister Carol had dinner with a young man she had recently met. He seemed rather reticent, but Carol did her best to keep the conversation going and show interest in him. At the end of the evening the young man said, “It was nice having dinner with the FBI.”

No second date for him

The Art of Ritual Complaining Another conversational device is complaining, and it too can be used in different ways. Jane and Sharon were talking about their mothers’ holiday visits. Jane told Sharon that hers had been a bit trying because her mother complained a lot and made comments that were critical of Jane. Sharon told Jane that hers had been terrific; her mother was always optimistic, and even if she said things that could be seen as offensive, Sharon didn’t take offense because she knew her mother meant well. Jane began to feel uncomfortable. She regretted talking against her mother and wanted to take it all back. Her mother also meant well and furthermore she was warm and youthful and generous! Jane’s discomfort arose because Sharon didn’t respond to her complaint the way she expected—with a matching complaint, sending the metamessage “You’re not alone; your mother is just a typical mother; I’m in the same boat.” Instead, the metamessage Jane heard was “You’ve really got a rotten mother, you poor thing. Mine is much better.” That made Jane want to retort, “She is not. Mine’s better!”

Exactly

Jane was (without thinking it through) trying to play a game of sharing complaints. But Sharon’s response felt to her like a game of one-upmanship. To Sharon, complaining about one’s mother is not only not expected; it’s bad form. Ironically, and not coincidentally, both Sharon and Jane were talking in the ways they ascribed to their mothers— Sharon was stressing the positive, and Jane was trying to establish solidarity by complaining.

The second part explains why we can’t be direct, even if we wanted to. PART I: WHY WE WON’T SAY WHAT WE MEAN The Metamessage of Rapport Cynthia told Greg she was hurt because he fixed himself a snack without offering her any. So he offered her the snack he had just fixed. She turned it down. He asked why. Because he hadn’t prepared it for her. Greg was exasperated: Was she hungry or not?

I really like the examples that follows after stating something

To Cynthia, whether or not she was hungry was beside the point; the point was whether or not Greg thought about her when he fixed himself a snack, which showed whether or not he cared about her as much as she cared about him. She would never feed herself without asking him “Would you like some?” In fact, she might not even have a snack if he didn’t want one.

A Greek woman explained how she and her father (and later her husband) communicated.

Now that sentense can be taken VERY wrongly

Let’s look at examples of why we can’t say what we mean. Which Truth? Ellen returned to her hometown for her sister’s wedding. At the reception, she talked to a lot of relatives and old high-school friends. She told no untruths and had no intention of telling any, yet she gave different people very different accounts of her life as a graduate student. And she walked away from some conversations feeling she had misrepresented herself.

Again i love the examples the follow

Although she didn’t consciously decide to do so, Ellen painted a positive picture of her life when she spoke to relatives and her parents’ friends. She didn’t want them to worry about her or repeat to her parents anything that might cause them concern. The negative view of her life was constructed for her old friends from high school—women her age who were married and bored and slightly envious of her life of independence and intellectual stimulation. She wanted, instinctively, to forestall rather than incite their envy.

Understandable

Thus, one reason we can’t solve the problems of indirectness by being direct is that there are always unstated assumptions—both the speaker’s and the hearer’s—that may not match. We don’t state them precisely because they are assumptions—by definition, ideas that are not stated because they are taken for granted. We don’t become aware of assumptions until there is unmistakable evidence that they are not shared.

Ruth had gotten a phone call from Albert, who also lives in Houston, and she mentioned to him that she had business in Houston on Thursday. Albert said, “Great! Let’s have dinner Thursday evening. I’ll keep Thursday evening free!” Ruth felt a tightness in her chest—a sign that things were going in a way she didn’t want—but she began instinctively to adjust her plans to accommodate this new development. She could see Emma on Friday night. Why didn’t Ruth just say no to Albert? She wasn’t prepared to deflect his offer because his way of making it was unexpected to her. Ruth expected him to make a vague offer like “Do you think you’ll have time to get together?” Then she would have replied, “I hope so—maybe for lunch Thursday or Friday. I’ll let you know how things go.”

Jeez that Albert is a big no for me. I would have said a big fat "No" to his face

Jack visits his grandmother in a nursing home. She boasts that she is really “in” with the nurses because they call her Millie. Jack isn’t pleased; he thinks they aren’t treating his grandmother with proper respect. Jack feels the nurses are establishing toward her a footing that reinforces their position of power; she takes their using her first name as an expression of solidarity.

Age, gender, and status all play roles here. In a sense the age relationship is a model for power and solidarity. Any adult can call any child by first name, but children must call at least some adults by title-last name (Mr., Ms., Miss, Mrs., Dr.). Ways of talking to children—calling them by first name, patting and caressing them, asking them personal questions—show affection. But they also reflect a difference in status because the right to show affection in that way is not reciprocal.

I never thought of it like that. Damnnn that’s true

This comeback made the man furious. He sputtered and spluttered and finally accused her: “I’ll bet your husband calls you honey and you love it!” This, of course, was just the point. He wasn’t her husband, so he shouldn’t address her as her husband might. But the man had made a friendly gesture, so her taking offense seemed to him unjust. He was aware of the metamessage of solidarity in calling her “honey.” She was reacting to the metamessage of condescension.

Just as solidarity can do double duty, so can distance. Standing off to be polite or considerate, including using tide and last name, can be taken as a show of superiority—being uppity or snobbish. Imagine an adolescent who returns from finishing school and begins addressing family members with formally polite language. The family reaction might be “Are you angry at us?” or “Do you think you’re too good for us now?” A failure of solidarity can thus be interpreted as a presumption of superiority.

Oooooo I’ve been the subject to this a lot

Why is it so common to find stylistic differences among partners in close relationships? I suspect it is a paradox built into our system of self-arranged marriage. We often choose our partners on the basis of romantic attraction, which is sparked by cultural difference. But as we settle in for the long haul, we expect friendly companionship. And that is most often found in cultural similarity. So the seeds of disappointment are sown in the same field as those of love. Yet persistent struggles of the sort described are common among partners from the same country, the same town— even the same block. This is because many of our closest and most precious relationships are between men and women, and men and women are guaranteed to have differences in style. Male-female conversation is always cross-cultural. The next chapter shows why and how.

#NOTED

These incongruent expectations capture one of the key differences between men and women. As explained in Chapter Two, communication is always a matter of balancing conflicting needs for involvement and independence. Though everyone has both these needs, women often have a relatively greater need for involvement, and men a relatively greater need for independence. Being understood without saying what you mean gives a payoff in involvement, and that is why women value it so highly.

If they do have heart-to-heart talks, the meaning of those talks may be opposite for men and women. To many women, the relationship is working as long as they can talk things out. To many men, the relationship isn’t working out if they have to keep working it over. If she keeps trying to get talks going to save the relationship, and he keeps trying to avoid them because he sees them as weakening it, then each one’s efforts to preserve the relationship appear to the other as reckless endangerment.

For example, Dora is feeling comfortable and close to Tom. She settles into a chair after dinner and begins to tell him about a problem at work. She expects him to ask questions to show he’s interested; reassure her that he understands and that what she feels is normal; and return the intimacy by telling her a problem of his. Instead, Tom sidetracks her story, cracks jokes about it, questions her interpretation of the problem, and gives her advice about how to solve it and avoid such problems in the future.

All of these responses, natural to men, are unexpected to women, who interpret them in terms of their own habits— negatively. When Tom comments on side issues or cracks jokes, Dora thinks he doesn’t care about what she’s saying and isn’t really listening. If he challenges her reading of what went on, she feels he is criticizing her and telling her she’s crazy, when what she wants is to be reassured that she’s not. If he tells her how to solve the problem, it makes her feel as if she’s the patient to his doctor—a metamessage of condescension, echoing male one-upmanship compared to the female etiquette of equality. Because he doesn’t volunteer information about his problems, she feels he’s implying he doesn’t have any.

Oooo that! I felt that deep in my chest

Complementary schismogenesis can easily set in: His way of responding to her bid for intimacy makes her feel distant from him. She tries harder to regain intimacy the only way she knows how—by revealing more and more about herself. He tries harder by giving more insistent advice. The more problems she exposes, the more incompetent she feels, until they both see her as emotionally draining and problem-ridden. When his efforts to help aren’t appreciated, he wonders why she asks for his advice if she doesn’t want to take it.

Bid : A formal invitation to join a sorority or a fraternity

It seems natural to women to tell and hear about what happened today, who turned up at the bus stop, who called and what she said, not because these details are important in themselves but because the telling of them proves involvement—that you care about each other, that you have a best friend. Knowing you will be able to tell these things later makes you feel less alone as you go along the lone path of a day. And if you don’t tell, you are sending a metamessage about the relationship—curtailing it, clipping its wings.

Since it is not natural to men to use talk in this way, they focus on the inherent insignificance of the details. What they find worth telling are facts about such topics as sports, politics, history, or how things work. Women often perceive the telling of facts as lecturing, which not only does not carry (for them) a metamessage of rapport, but carries instead a metamessage of condescension: I’m the teacher, you’re the student. I’m knowledgeable, you’re ignorant.

When women talk about what seems obviously interesting to them, their conversations often include reports of conversations. Tone of voice, timing, intonation, and wording are all re-created in the telling in order to explain—dramatize, really—the experience that is being reported. If men tell about an incident and give a brief summary instead of recreating what was said and how, the women often feel that the essence of the experience is being omitted.

As Angela and Conrad left the concert hall, Conrad began to pick apart the performance. Angela got a sinking feeling in her chest. She heard the metamessage “I’m having a rotten time,” and, since the time Conrad was having was with her, “I don’t like being with you.” The more he criticized the musicians, the more certain she felt that the hostility he was expressing toward the piccolo player was really an expression of how he felt about her.

some people use criticism aimed outward—at other people not present, at inanimate objects—as a means of establishing solidarity with the people they’re with. It’s a variation of the solidarity-through-complaining device described in Chapter Three. Unfortunately, those who don’t expect this critical stance are offended by it; they feel sure that anyone who is so critical of everyone and everything must also be critical of them.

Gregory Bateson pointed out that people often fail to distinguish between the map and the territory: the real thing and the thing that represents it symbolically. If we identify strongly with our home, our clothing, our partners, or the restaurant we chose, then criticism aimed at them feels like criticism of us. Sometimes it is, but sometimes it isn’t. It’s important to remember that the map is not the territory: Some people freely aim arrows at external objects with which people identify, yet they have no intention of wounding people. Quite the contrary, aiming criticism out can be an expression of solidarity with those thus defined as in: “You and me against the world.”

many people regard the use of what they consider correct English usage as a sign of intelligence— an attitude with no basis in fact. What is a fact is that slightly altering common expressions is as common as the expressions themselves and presents no barrier to comprehension.

One of the most destructive aspects of intimate criticism is that its effects can be lasting. Josie went through years - life happily, if ignorantly, oblivious of innumerable minor faults or faultless habits—a nervous click she sometimes inserts in pauses; automatically yelling “Ow!” when only slightly hurt; a soft fuzz on her upper lip; a tendency to gulp down her drink when others are sipping. But after living with Andy, who continually informed her that he found these and other habits offensive, she was doomed to see them in this nasty light forever. After she divorced Andy, she kept his negative view of her quirks as part of her settlement, etched on her view of herself and shaded in with a general feeling that she was displeasing to be around.

#staysingleforever

Vicki took her mother’s reported remarks as the real truth—as did Jill. And when Jill repeated them, she was, after all, accurately repeating what she’d heard. Yet it was she who inadvertently hurt Vicki by repeating a version of the truth that had been specially sculpted for another situation—a conversation with Jill.

I can see that. What’s meant for one ear is not meant for another

For the criticized, it helps to remember that criticism is a common by-product of closeness. It really is evidence of the presence, not the absence, of intimacy.

We tend to see our own behavior as a reaction to others; if we are rude to someone who has annoyed or offended us, we do not think this rudeness defines our personality;

It was clear to me that complementary schismogenesis was setting in. The more Mr. Beto felt that, through questioning, his competence and authority were being challenged, the more he evaded the questions, the more questions he was asked, and so on. Whereas the chemists were thinking of their questions simply for the message value—trying to get information—he was responding to the metamessage—questioning his competence.

I didn’t try to explain any of this to Mr. Beto. Instead, I made a recommendation that proceeded from his assumptions. I suggested that he short-circuit people’s attempts to undermine his position by volunteering in advance all the information they could possibly ask questions about. The result of this behavior would be exactly what the chemists wanted, without however endorsing their view or invalidating his. The director of the company later reported that the problem was solved: “People say he’s speaking English now.”

Lol

a couple reported their own experience: They were taking out-of-town visitors to dinner; the husband was driving, and talking. As they drove past a building that the wife recognized as the one on the cover of the local telephone book, she tossed in a comment to that effect. The husband stopped talking and refused to go on, punishing her for interrupting. The wife said to him, “You heard what Dr. Tannen said. I’m just showing enthusiasm. Why don’t you talk over me?” He responded, “I don’t want to be a competitive talker.” Even though he understood the mechanism of what was going on, he didn’t want to change his way of talking because he didn’t want to see himself as the sort of person who would talk that way.