Here's the example given of Zuckerberg's "right, so" tic:
I think what's going on here is a person who knows he's very smart trying to include his interlocutor, but not trying that hard. He's essentially saying I care that you're keeping up and I do want you to follow along, but I'm still going to get all this out without stopping to let you speak and, perhaps, to show that you're not really on the same page with me. I'll just credit you with understanding and agreement and proceed with what I've got to say. Trust me, we'll all be better off if you go along with all this. Why, it's almost a human relationship.
Posts
28 comments:
so, if we WERE antifascists, and socialists; right?
Wouldn't we WANT zuckerdude turned into soap?
Right, so the guy is a roberbaron, that is sucking the world, like a Vampire... Right?
So, if we WERE antifiscists, and socialists; right?
Wouldn't this guy be... THE Enemy?
So, what does it say; that people that are LOUDING proclaiming, that They ARE antifascists and socialists...
Are Working FOR this guy, and his Brave New World?
It's Almost like, they're Not REALLY antifascists and socials; but are REALLY something else
Right?
Wearing headgear for extended periods is going to be exhausting and leave plenty of sore necks.
Fun for gaming, but given it eliminates most if not all facial nonverbal communication it is not going to be a rich environment for discussion.
If you are all on the spectrum and not fans of eye contact, this seems great.
In the past few years, I have noticed young people use a terminal "So." to close off an extended thought, to indicate "I'm done talking about that now". When my daughter graduated HS ten years ago, she didn't speak like that. Now she does. She also has learned uptalk.
If there is anyone left who is unsure of vocal fry, listen to NPR for an hour & you'll hear plenty of it. Especially the long-format programs. The female newsreaders tend to lower the voice w/o entering fry territory, to sound more authoritative. (My ex, trained at Juilliard, calls that "sitting on the voice".) Eleanor Beardsley is always a deep-fryer.
It's GeekSpeak. My stepson uses it. And his coworkers and friends use it. These are professional techies and this is how they speak. It's bizarre. We have, on one hand, women speaking as Valley Girls, and men speaking in GeekSpeak. This is the Millennial Generation. It is as if they all went to college to learn how to talk like each other, and then once they were proficient at it, they were handed their degrees and sent off to take over the world as we know it (not sure the Taliban or CCP will go along with it, but time will tell).
I don't know why, but to me Zuckerberg is the most disgusting, manipulative, disease-minded individual of our times. I loathe that person.
B.S. it is person who is NOT VERY SMART trying to bs their way thru life. Lazy intellect.
I hate when explainers start their sentences with "So...".
They might as well start with 'Once upon a time'. That's what my mind hears.
Right so Zuckerberg returns as a subject of discussion this week in the DNC-Media and it’s one of those soft-focused articles that make you wonder why the fuck this writer even started this. Is it humanizing Zuck? Not really. It still positions him out there beyond normal human thought, beyond your capabilities perhaps. And if you can’t follow Zuck’s train of thought how can you question his desire to control speech on the Web?
But I can’t help seeing this article in context of all that’s happened over the last three weeks or so. Zuck presents a much more malevolent mission in this free Republic than his knack for talking over subordinates. His desire to have Facebook control speech and news and advertising online is simultaneously eroding the first amendment at home and promoting totalitarianism abroad. Without WhatsApp the Taliban had no way to coordinate their takeover of Afghanistan. They used the app to talk to each other but also to message everyone on the local telecom network with the news they were in charge and here’s your new “911” if you need Taliban help. WhatsApp servers are in the USA. Neither our armed forces nor our supersmart CIA nor the enabling app itself took any action over this time to take down the Taliban Network Powered by Facebook. Only after we lost 13 young Americans in the IED did someone allegedly kick the Taliban off WhatsApp.
Is that still the case? Who knows! DNC-Media wants you to think of Zuck as a creative speaker not an evil oligarch pulling strings behind the scene. Ooh look he phrases introductory clauses sorta like a program! And then zooms right along just like he’s programmed.
I get that Zuckerberg seems as comfortable talking about anything as he is uncomfortable talking at all (a clever observation on the writer's part), but it seems like the writer is trying to make too much of that. What I hear mostly is the usual language of the tech business as spoken by someone a bit Aspergery. Aspergery in a different way from Elon Musk, but not that out of the ordinary for the tech biz.
I watched about eight minutes of that waiting for something strange to happen with his speech, but I thought he sounded normal the entire time. Not the topic under discussion, but I thought the point about a sense of space in interaction was a good one.
So, a monologue from a single-minded man about creating a world where we are our own avatar, right. Any background, right, from any time or place and any body or clothes, right.
So it combines the best of paper dolls and re-enactment into one great zoom meeting, where Zuck talks and the rest zucktalk, avatars copying The Great Avatar, right, so.
So right we can create whatever avatar we want but, right, our habitual body language will still be the same, so you can't hide and you can't run because the avatars are only from the waist up. So, creepy, right?
So right, wrong. Take away his headset.
.
Right so, "her" headset.
So, so canceled, right.
Wrong, in reality, gone fishing.
Serious Question
When building our avitars, will we be able to choose what color hair rollers we'll wear?
Zuck is evil
I don't tend to watch the morning "news" shows, but it struck me that this was nothing more than an infomercial for Facebook. Does CBS charge for that?
So, it's just a matter of time until Donald Trump invades this metaspace, right? I mean, he is everywhere, right? In fact, I bet he has a team dedicated to hacking into these things. So, you'll put your metaworld together, and he'll show up, right? He'll start off sweet, but if you don't agree with him, he'll turn on the charm, and then he'll get a bit ugly. Maybe call you a loser, right? So, is he really mad, or is he just pulling your leg, right? You don't know...BUT HE WON'T LEAVE. So, finally, you pull out an AK-47 and let him have it. You find peace, right? So, you go to sleep.
But when you wake up, he comes back.
Is it the speech of mentally suppressing scads of information? I think anyone who is explaining something complex that he knows a lot about to a lay audience sounds pretty much like this. Perhaps it's what a person sounds like when huge amounts of information are coming to mind that he has to reject for sharing. You have to stay on the little track that can be understood easily without a lot of background information. This is the sound of driving along that track.
"here is a person who knows he's very smart trying to include his interlocutor, but not trying that hard"
Not sure about that. Is Zuck thinking at all about the other rather than simply expressing his point?
The analysis also leaves out the ticishness of the tic, something uncontrolled in a performance aiming to convey rational control.
But I've heard much worse than Zuck.
I worked with smarter guys (yes, almost always guys) in tech over a 40 year period. He happened to hit on a particular idea that took off.
Most of the genius tech guys are great at one or two things...you probably shouldn't be listening to their opinions on medicine or climate or biology, etc.
“…someone — in this case, and often, a man— …”
Notable that in the act of analyzing speech, the writer uses the obvious weasel word “often.” It’s bad faith communication that wants to trick the reader into believing something that may not be true, but supports a narrative in which the writer is invested.
I guess I encounter enough Zucks that I did not notice anything about his speech, even when it was the point of my listening. But what struck me about the video is that in the introductory discussion it sounded like gibberish to me, but once they put on the headsets it all started to make sense and did indeed seem amazing. But boy, all the power the next generation will be consuming.
"So, it's just a matter of time until Donald Trump invades this metaspace, right?"
The thought reminds me of the scene in the movie Disclosure where Michael Douglas is in the virtual world of his company's data management system trying to find some critical electronic files. In the scene, the 3D avatar of one his associates approaches to delete files before he can transfer them.
'I hate when explainers start their sentences with "So...".'
So, I'll have to remember to avoid annoying Temujin when I comment on this blog.
What I got from that video was how unprepared the interviewer was for discussing the topic.
The CEO of my company uses "right?" quite a bit. He makes a declaratory statement, then says "right?," then moves on.
I know it's an interrogatory "are you with me?" utterance. I watched a discussion between Jordan Peterson and Camille Paglia on Youtube and I was stunned by the dozens of times Paglia said, "okay?" in her speech. Understandable, since she's been a professor all her life and she says "okay?" as a sort of invitation to her students to ask a question, not that she gives them much of a chance because she's on to her next point immediately.
But even though I know that, I can't help but think the CEO is unconsciously weakening his argument with "right?" because the word sounds like a plaintive "you agree with me, don't you?"
It's a perfect moment for someone to say "I don't see it that way," or "No, I disagree."
It's a good thing for him that he's the CEO like his daddy was and no one around him has ever had the temerity to stand up to him. But the addition of "right?" shows he's not real CEO material. It shows that he's just the son of the owner and was next in line, because a real leader would just lay down a statement, right or wrong, and dare people to contradict him. This CEO is begging people not to contradict him.
The conclusion of the Times article:
'“So” is comfortable in front of the YouTube video; “right” handily punctuates up the Instagram Live; a “right? so” maneuver erases dead air on a podcast. These turns of phrase aren’t likely to go away soon, so we might as well get used to them. Right?'
So....I'd like to start my own trend: "Left?"
"Right?" ===>> "Are you keeping up?"
"Left?" ===>> "Have I left you behind?"
Eww, come to think of it, like, gag me with a spoon, you know?
I believe that remote zoom communication prompts a lot of engagement cues, whether extra words to command attention ("so") or retention cues ("right" or uptalk before pauses). I think this is because of the lack of social cues like eye contact. It is easy to eliminate these tics when reading from a script, but hard when simply talking to a camera or screen. They make transcripts embarrassing but don't get noticed in real time.
Why do I think some people on this thread are Philip K. Dick fans?
won't this destroy "corporate retreat for team building " etc business
This is all so awful and so scary that, short of a book, I could not do it justice. It is creepy beyond words. It is the death of humanity.
It is just what uber-nerds like Zuckerberg and Gates have always wanted.
Post a Comment