4 ms·

I think the author's chosen name for the phenomenon "Nicespeak" creates a cognitive distortion that muddies what I think her point is. She is not talking about

I think the author's chosen name for the phenomenon "Nicespeak" creates a cognitive distortion that muddies what I think her point is. She is not talking about being nice rather than being rude. Rather she is talking about being authentic and human rather than becoming an automaton channeling the will of the powers that are compelling your speech. Her example of the fast food worker is they're channeling the brand of the franchise "whether or not they made sense in a given context". "The idea was to subordinate the personality of the individual speaker to a centrally designed corporate voice." Her example of the workers in the public-private partnership of academia describes having to conform to the rules of the corporate information-hiding language game in order to compete with others for funding. "If they do not claim to be 'excellent', they will inevitably come out losers." In these cases the casualties are authenticity, connection, a frank assessment of and confrontation with reality, and humanity. In lieu of them, we've created a network of symbols and signs overtop of existence that pretends to be true reality, but really distorts it to the benefit of the holders of power. This network of symbols comprises brands, mission statements, corporate personalities, metrics that yield to Goodhart's law, empty buzzwords and hype, etc, etc, etc. I think that's what she's criticizing.

seti0Cha 4y ago
> In these cases the casualties are authenticity, connection, a frank assessment of and confrontation with reality, and humanity. In lieu of them, we've created a network of symbols and signs overtop of existence that pretends to be true reality, but really distorts it to the benefit of the holders of power My point is, we have always done this, but with different vocabulary and different institutions. When has human relations at any scale been properly characterized as frank or authentic? I suppose you could say that the Mongols butchering their way across Europe and Asia were being frank and authentic in their relations with others, but I doubt they were so in their internal relations.
snapcaster 4y ago
I think the reason that we do what you and the post you're replying to describe is because it massively lowers "transaction costs" of social interactions. It's a simplifying abstraction, and obviously all abstractions will hide information or result in things being lost
- freeone3000 4y ago
  what is the benefit here? it's too costly to talk to a human, so instead, you would rather speak to a corporate automaton?
  - watwut 4y ago
    So, there is this cup of coffee that is given to you by a waiter who gave out 30 cups of coffee since morning and will give out 40 more. The waiter has to say something while giving it out. Effectively, you are demanding that waiter personalizes the message to each customer instead of just saying stock "enjoy your meal". That is genuinely demanding too much.
  - austhrow743 4y ago
    No. It's too costly to speak to 200 humans, so instead, you would rather turn in to a corporate automaton. The stock phrases are so I, the employee who has to interact with customers, can turn off.

seti0Cha 4y ago

> In these cases the casualties are authenticity, connection, a frank assessment of and confrontation with reality, and humanity. In lieu of them, we've created a network of symbols and signs overtop of existence that pretends to be true reality, but really distorts it to the benefit of the holders of power My point is, we have always done this, but with different vocabulary and different institutions. When has human relations at any scale been properly characterized as frank or authentic? I suppose you could say that the Mongols butchering their way across Europe and Asia were being frank and authentic in their relations with others, but I doubt they were so in their internal relations.

snapcaster 4y ago

I think the reason that we do what you and the post you're replying to describe is because it massively lowers "transaction costs" of social interactions. It's a simplifying abstraction, and obviously all abstractions will hide information or result in things being lost

freeone3000 4y ago
what is the benefit here? it's too costly to talk to a human, so instead, you would rather speak to a corporate automaton?
- watwut 4y ago
  So, there is this cup of coffee that is given to you by a waiter who gave out 30 cups of coffee since morning and will give out 40 more. The waiter has to say something while giving it out. Effectively, you are demanding that waiter personalizes the message to each customer instead of just saying stock "enjoy your meal". That is genuinely demanding too much.
- austhrow743 4y ago
  No. It's too costly to speak to 200 humans, so instead, you would rather turn in to a corporate automaton. The stock phrases are so I, the employee who has to interact with customers, can turn off.