4 ms·

I love Grice's Maxims because they're something virtually all speakers intuitively understand and follow whether they've heard of them or not. Where they're re

I love Grice's Maxims because they're something virtually all speakers intuitively understand and follow whether they've heard of them or not. Where they're really useful, though, is in identifying when people are being deceptive or misleading. It happens all the time with politicians taking stuff out of context - "My opponent said xyz is true, which is terrible!" when the reality is that your opponent said xyz is true only when abc happens, they've violated Grice's Maxim of Quantity. Oftentimes people get tripped up when they're speaking to someone who is saying things that are technically true but feel misleading, but they're unable to really pinpoint what's wrong with them - a lot of the time it's because the other speaking is violating the the Maxims of Quantity or Relation. If you can identify that, then it's a lot easier to figure out what the other person is doing (and to try to understand why they're doing it).

the_af 6y ago
> virtually all speakers intuitively understand and follow whether they've heard of them or not Do they? I regularly speak with people who can't stick to the point, ramble, start talking about something whose first half of the conversation occurred only in their heads, and are prone to providing unnecessary detail. Haven't you never experienced a three way conversation where you notice one of the parties used an ambiguous term and the other party chose the wrong meaning? I find this happens pretty frequently; and of course, I've been either of these parties at times!
- lupire 6y ago
  Pobody's nerfect. Intuition isn't a precise skill. Humans also intuitively solve differential equations when catching a ball, but they can't land rockets on mars off the top of their heads.
  - the_af 6y ago
    Yes, yes. I meant that people do not intuitively understand or follow these rules, as asserted by the post I was replying to. People routinely fail to follow them, and lots of people I have direct contact with don't even understand why being ambiguous when giving directions for a job is a bad thing. I have a perfect example of this: one person I know, when he says "next Monday" only truly means the next immediate Monday when it's more than 3-4 days away and never when next Monday is tomorrow. In all other cases he'll say "this Monday" when he means the next one, and "the 'other' Monday" when he means the one after the next one. It seems to be a very imprecise function of the distance to the actual next Monday. Now, some considerations: some people actually talk like this in informal contexts, though not everyone and there's no way of always knowing the context. Also, I'm translating from Spanish; presumably the English vernacular has similar imprecise conventions. What drives me crazy is that this imprecise language is used when arranging a date or scheduling some job. "Next Monday I have a doctor's appointment", or "This task will be finished next Monday". This person is always puzzled when I ask him to clarify what he means by "next Monday" -- is it the actual next Monday or the other Monday? Of course many times you can guess by context, especially if you're familiar with this convention, but it's not always possible and it catches people unfamiliar with the convention off-guard. And this is just an example. It happens all the time, with lots of people, with lots of ambiguities that have real impact. People absolutely do NOT follow these maxims of conversation. Another example: I could have explained all of this way more concisely. I chose to rant instead ;)
    - obsequiosity 6y ago
      What's interesting to me is how "technical" concepts might predict someone's inability to adhere to Grice's Maxims. A person in a manic episode might be affected by Logorrhea and therefore may give too much information (violation of Maxim of Quantity) Someone with Asperger's or ADHD may be inclined to tangents (violation of Maxim of Relation) or misuse figures of speech, misunderstand implied meanings, or be too detailed in an explanation (violation of Maxim of Manner)
- quantified 6y ago
  All the time. Some stuck have stuck in my head. Once in a fraught technical exchange, an example was contrived regarding goegraphical place and temperature. One party talked about handling degrees and meant either latitude or temperature (I forget which), the other party took it as the other (temperature or latitude), and argument ensued over bogus handling of data. I attempted to alert them as to what the misunderstanding was, and they both glared at me and said to stay out of it. Took a bunch of time in a meeting involving at least 13 people to finally converge. There is a missing maxim about being welcome to engage in the conversation in the first place.

the_af 6y ago

> virtually all speakers intuitively understand and follow whether they've heard of them or not Do they? I regularly speak with people who can't stick to the point, ramble, start talking about something whose first half of the conversation occurred only in their heads, and are prone to providing unnecessary detail. Haven't you never experienced a three way conversation where you notice one of the parties used an ambiguous term and the other party chose the wrong meaning? I find this happens pretty frequently; and of course, I've been either of these parties at times!

lupire 6y ago
Pobody's nerfect. Intuition isn't a precise skill. Humans also intuitively solve differential equations when catching a ball, but they can't land rockets on mars off the top of their heads.
- the_af 6y ago
  Yes, yes. I meant that people do not intuitively understand or follow these rules, as asserted by the post I was replying to. People routinely fail to follow them, and lots of people I have direct contact with don't even understand why being ambiguous when giving directions for a job is a bad thing. I have a perfect example of this: one person I know, when he says "next Monday" only truly means the next immediate Monday when it's more than 3-4 days away and never when next Monday is tomorrow. In all other cases he'll say "this Monday" when he means the next one, and "the 'other' Monday" when he means the one after the next one. It seems to be a very imprecise function of the distance to the actual next Monday. Now, some considerations: some people actually talk like this in informal contexts, though not everyone and there's no way of always knowing the context. Also, I'm translating from Spanish; presumably the English vernacular has similar imprecise conventions. What drives me crazy is that this imprecise language is used when arranging a date or scheduling some job. "Next Monday I have a doctor's appointment", or "This task will be finished next Monday". This person is always puzzled when I ask him to clarify what he means by "next Monday" -- is it the actual next Monday or the other Monday? Of course many times you can guess by context, especially if you're familiar with this convention, but it's not always possible and it catches people unfamiliar with the convention off-guard. And this is just an example. It happens all the time, with lots of people, with lots of ambiguities that have real impact. People absolutely do NOT follow these maxims of conversation. Another example: I could have explained all of this way more concisely. I chose to rant instead ;)
  - obsequiosity 6y ago
    What's interesting to me is how "technical" concepts might predict someone's inability to adhere to Grice's Maxims. A person in a manic episode might be affected by Logorrhea and therefore may give too much information (violation of Maxim of Quantity) Someone with Asperger's or ADHD may be inclined to tangents (violation of Maxim of Relation) or misuse figures of speech, misunderstand implied meanings, or be too detailed in an explanation (violation of Maxim of Manner)
quantified 6y ago
All the time. Some stuck have stuck in my head. Once in a fraught technical exchange, an example was contrived regarding goegraphical place and temperature. One party talked about handling degrees and meant either latitude or temperature (I forget which), the other party took it as the other (temperature or latitude), and argument ensued over bogus handling of data. I attempted to alert them as to what the misunderstanding was, and they both glared at me and said to stay out of it. Took a bunch of time in a meeting involving at least 13 people to finally converge. There is a missing maxim about being welcome to engage in the conversation in the first place.