It's late and oh how I want to sleep, but I don't want today to fade before I write about it. It's been too interesting to lose.
I worked this morning as an usher for a Steven Pinker lecture at Harvard. About 25 minutes transpired from my designated arrival time at Memorial Hall to when the theater manager came to debrief us on the event. The wait saw a most bizarre group dynamic emerge among the seven others who also worked there. Each of the more eclectic members of the group initiated a conversation topic that was in no way related to the previous conversation string. It started with how the one lady refused to take the 79 bus that morning, went to one of the ladies (and I don't believe her) telling a tale of working for a company that was worth $120 or something a share, then plummeted to four shares for a dollar, from getting promised a six figure raise to paying the cleaning lady out of her pocket. Topic abruptly changed to another lady complaining about some ignorant girl that had said recycling isn't important, to which the girl next to me--who had until then been silent--chimed in about recycling is more about the chemicals than the trees. There were no transitions between topics, no logic in how this conversation progressed. It was unreal. One of the ladies coughed, and she did sound like she had tuberculosis, and another reacted by commanding, "don't come near me!"
I did end up having meaningful, completely sequitur, interactions with most individuals of this motley group, enjoyed them, and avoided catching TB.
Oh but the lecture! It was basically about how we use language. I think Steven Pinker is a psychologist, but his presentation incorporated linguistic concepts and even some rational choice illustrated by the game theory model, a staple of economic/political scientific thought. Right up my mosaic-tiled I'm-interested-in-everything-and-most-especially-humans alleyway. Let's see if I can recount this.
What captured my attention then and since was his statement that "When a relationship is ambiguous, divergent understanding can be costly (awkward)." If two people in a relationship (when I say relationship I mean an interaction of any duration or nature) have mismatched perceptions of what their relationship is, discomfort results. I think we all know exactly what this means. :)
Pinker used this to explain why people veil their invitations (a bribe, for example) even though both parties know exactly what they mean. A bribe changes the relationship from one of dominance (a police officer or a maitre d' has power in the speeder's or diner's life) to one of reciprocity (a relationship of mutual benefit). If both the briber and the one being bribed agree to change their relationship to once of reciprocity--if the bribe is accepted--there is no social awkwardness and the exchange occurs. But if the one being bribed is honest, the relationship will become strained because one party wants to maintain the relationship of dominance and the other wants a relationship of reciprocity. An honest police officer can arrest the briber. An honest maitre d' will react with indignation.
That's for the choice between bribe and no bribe. But there's another option--veiled bribe. Example: "I think we can settle this here, officer." A dishonest officer will pick up on the bribe and the transaction will follow. An honest officer is free to overlook the request because he has no outright evidence or basis for arrest. The overall cost of the veiled bribe is lower than the cost of the direct bribe because there is no chance for arrest but there is still chance of getting away with the offense. Indirect language minimizes social cost without compromising payoffs.
Did that make sense?
Then there was something about the importance of making individual knowledge become collective knowledge by communicating. Collective knowledge is the foundation for relationships. I...don't...remember what else.
Fascinating topic. Also fascinating was eavesdropping on the ladies' conversations during the reception after. The lecture was actually an event for a society of retired people who want to continue their education. The attendee's average age was 75. Another group dynamic emerged: that of collectively hating Sarah Palin. It was nearly as bizarre as the earlier conversation to witness the ladies I listened to contribute to each others' unnatural suspicion and fear of the VP candidate. I heard the words "dangerous" and "scare." I imagined the words "stone her! drown her!" It was like "beware the Ides of March" but "beware the Sarah Palin." I would say "beware the tyranny of group dynamics."
Then I got another free lunch--Asian salmon salad--and an extra to take home for the next day. So timely, these free lunches.
My dad called while I walked home from Harvard to tell me his friend had a connection with a state senator who is looking to hire someone and if I gave him my resume within the next couple of hours, he would pass it to her himself. I actually love the idea. The state senator is a Democrat, and I had to tell my dad that I've known a few and I actually kind of like them. :)
Annie waited for me to go to Nahant Beach after work. The waves were way better than the last time I was there for the ward beach day. AND I didn't even get sunburned. I fell deeper in love with New England. I hope New England feels the same way about me. I wouldn't want our relationship to be ambiguous.
I cannot adequately express my excitement over this moment I had today.
