#verbal intelligence

Michael Malice: A Clinical Analysis | EP 516 | Jordan B Peterson

Jordan Peterson sits down with author, podcaster, and notorious troll, Michael Malice. They discuss the motivations behind deep and totalitarian evil, how the margins of society operate within the anarchist framework, and the effect of counterproductive moralizing on psychological and political behavior.

The concept of “cognitive load” in communication is derived from cognitive psychology and is closely related to the processing capacity of the working memory. When a speaker uses a limited amount of vocabulary, the listener's actual cognitive load increases and this affects everyone negatively, temporarily because it’s harder work. However, when verbal intelligence is unequal, especially if the listener’s verbal intelligence is lower in comparison to the Speaker’s, a feeling of powerless sets in, it’s very probable that it’s mostly done unconsciously. The natural outcomes of powerlessness, a tired feeling, it’s fatiguing really to the one embodying it. The natural to powerless and lower intellegence match, is listener then feels frustration, defense mechanism activation, stonewalling happens. Stonewalling as a defense mechanism is defined here has feelings related to bothersome and powerlessness, having natural outcomes of devaluation, decreased empathy, communication breakdown, reduced information retention, and relational estrangement.

Although the outcome is unacceptable, and speaker is usually victimized speaker. The root problem is a difference in verbal intelligence, which needs intellegence to resolve, something that appears to be very triggering to even be unconsciously aware of differences too. First, understanding how and why something happens, then later indulging evidence based strategies to over come it.

The Importance of Semantic Precision

This is where meaning and the pressure of precision unfairly burdens all speakers. Semantic Precision, is essential for effectively conveying nuanced meanings and reducing ambiguity in communication. Semantics, the study of meaning in language, reveals that word choice is critical for conveying subtleties in tone, intention, and meaning (Cruse, 1986). A speaker with a rich vocabulary, is often burden with one, being fully aware of their own vocabulary, burden to learn the listeners if they are not already burdened with assumptions they already know. These pressures, are taxing, and while the speaker already can distinguish between synonyms with subtle differences, such as 'happy,' 'elated,' and 'ecstatic,' they now know each of which now carries a different intensity and connotation, if misunderstood. This precision is not just about avoiding misunderstandings but also about who is going to enrich the communication experience for both the speaker and the listener. Interesting, the less verbal intelligent, is off the hook on this one.

Enhancing Communication Efficiency with Vocabulary

Communication efficiency and as it relates to how quickly and effectively information can be conveyed and understood. While a broad vocabulary may potentially streamlines communication by reducing the need for long explanations or circumlocutions (Bloom & Lahey, 1978). It also, requires all the above when the listener is lower in verbal intelligence and limited in vocab. While it’s great that a speaker can choose the most appropriate word for a given context, messages become more concise and impactful. Except, when it’s socializing with average and no one really can know the listener. Often, the speaker is burden with unnecessary responsibilities like identifying the vocabulary of the listener. When in reality, in today’s world, the speaker is may be hesitant to make any generalizations and stereotypes but this the burden. This appears extra taxing, to the more verbal intelligence and the over reliance on their vocabulary isn’t going to resolve the problem permanently either. The lack of curiosity of speaker to find the meaning, and to expanding of their limited emotinal dynamics for caring. Efficiency in communication not only saves time but also holds the listener's attention and improves the overall interaction. It’s uneven. Appreciate lies more to the more intellectual as far as work goes, including working on “not looking like work to the speaker”, too. It’s unnecessary.

Socio-Cultural Perceptions and Vocabulary

The socio-cultural perceptions, associated with vocabulary are deeply rooted in societal norms and educational systems. A strong vocabulary is often associated with higher socioeconomic status, better education, and greater professional success (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968). These perceptions can influence opportunities and outcomes in education, employment, and social advancement. It's essential to understand the impact of these perceptions on motivation and self-improvement, as they can either hinder or help individuals in their personal and professional lives. However, it’s they are often the scapegoats in casual conversations too. If they dare steer the conversation too “deep”, they are held liable, if they don’t speak the precise and near equal amount too, of quantity of words as the less curious listener. Scapegoated! So what’s left? Should the intellectual remain quiet? In some cases, yes, most and this case. No!

The Role of Ambiguity and Misunderstanding in Communication

Ambiguity and Misunderstanding are often the result of imprecise language use (Levinson, 2000). When a speaker uses a word with multiple meanings without providing enough context, the listener may interpret the message differently than intended. This can lead to confusion and frustration on both sides of the conversation. In certain situations, like legal or medical contexts, ambiguity can have serious consequences. Therefore, the ability to use language precisely is critical for clear and effective communication.

So the solution is the processing of feelings like frustration, due to the listener having to “work”, or having perceived needing a large amount of energy and emotion to match or understand the speaker. Energy and emotions, are finite resources, despite the brain thinking it’s possible infinite. It is because the listener must work harder to comprehend the speaker's intended message (Sweller, 1988). This mental strain can then lead to greater instances of miscommunication. The listener may need to use more inferential reasoning, which can be exhausting and leave more room for error. A robust vocabulary allows for more straightforward communication, reducing the cognitive load and fostering better understanding. The unconscious is mindful of the finite possibilities with emotional dynamics, emotional dynamics are limiting.

Frustration

Listeners may become frustrated if they struggle to comprehend the speaker's message (Kahneman, 1973). This frustration can lead to negative judgments about the communication event and potentially about the speaker themselves. That’s unacceptable behavior, listener not speaker is allowed to be both proper, and egotistical like this. Don’t tell the speaker the vocabulary is the problem, ask them to use the word in an analogy, a few times. Look it up yourself, if all fails. Mindfulness and relaxation techniques have been shown to help manage frustration by reducing the emotional response to stressors, including challenging communication (Bishop et al., 2004). Mindfulness can help listeners maintain focus on the present moment and reduce negative judgments.

The Destructive Defensive Mechanisms

listeners feel as they want, they are not entitled to their behavior though. Haven’t said that they are being challenged, maybe it’s not what the listener desired, but being challenged is everyone’s risk when socializing but if the effort to understand seems too great, there will be an activation of their psychological defenses. Still no blame can applied to either the listeners, nor speakers fault. But when blame is being handed out. This might include dismissing the speaker's message or attributing the difficulty in understanding to the speaker’s abilities rather than their own (Higgins, 1996). Talking about the choice of vocabulary but not the appropriate age where not knowing something, isn’t speakers place for accountability too. There is the internet, free courses, ignorance or claiming one is “more expert” in the field. Thus it’s the responsibility of speaker to support you in “knowing”. That’s not going to get a speaker into what is called cognitive reappraisal. To counter defensive mechanisms, cognitive reappraisal—a form of emotional regulation that involves changing one's interpretation of a situation to alter its emotional impact—can be effective (Gross, 2002). This can involve reinterpreting a difficult comprehension task as a learning opportunity rather than a challenge to one's abilities.

Negative Perceptions

There is evidence that a speaker's use of language can trigger listeners to form judgments about their intelligence, competence, and credibility (Rubin, 1992). But that can only happen when the verbal intelligence gap, and limited vocabulary are large. It’s this gap, and limited vocabulary (probably a sign of lower openness to experience) that the cognitive load feels and is high, listeners then excuse their judgements of the speaker for being more harshly. This is because they failed to engage in what is called perspective taking. Perspective taking, is when the listeners can actively try to adopt the speaker’s perspective to reduce negative perceptions. This can help to increase understanding and reduce harsh judgments of speakers, especially when it’s not the speakers fault. (Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000).

Decreased Empathy

Remember, when a human being is faced with a true threat, something it can not mitigate. The brain evolved to, as a mechanism, to over ride reality with outs own distortions, negative valuation and it did so it can cope. Hand it out more selectively, especially with humans. Admirable it is to not willing to die or live without quality, this is speaker is a human being. Have more empathy, is what is meant here. Cognitive load can decrease empathic responses. If listeners are preoccupied with trying to understand the message, they may be less able to empathize with the speaker's situation or viewpoint (Decety & Jackson, 2004). Listen needs to dehumanize the speaker, and the situation. To mitigate decreased empathy, listeners can engage in empathic listening, which involves actively trying to understand the speaker's message and emotions (Rogers, 1975). This can help maintain an empathic connection even under high cognitive load.

Avoid Being Toxic

While the term "toxic" is not typically used in academic literature to describe listener responses, high cognitive load and resulting frustration could lead to behaviors that might be described as toxic, such as aggression, hostility, or passive-aggressive communication (Rozin & Royzman, 2001).

Communication Breakdown

Increased effort in processing a message may result in a breakdown of communication, where the listener disengages from the interaction entirely (Graesser, Singer, & Trabasso, 1994). It will be here. If the listen struggles with this stage then it suggests a need for communication style training. Both speaker and listener have obligations to stay within parameters of asssertive communication, as that’s the most effective form. No name calling, yelling, speaking too softly, indirect comments like “use less jargon”. It’s also not the speaker’s fault, listeners don’t know or use this style. Listeners can learn and practice communication skills such as active listening and conflict resolution to avoid toxic responses (Watzlawick, Beavin Bavelas, & Jackson, 2011). These skills can help maintain a positive interaction, even in stressful communication situations.

Reduced Information Retention

While high cognitive load can impair listeners' ability to retain information, as their cognitive resources are stretched thin by the effort of trying to understand the message (Sweller, 1988). Listener’s still have active engagement as means to gather the new information the need. In order to prevent communication breakdown, listeners will need engage in active questioning and summarization, with the speaker, to ensure understanding (King, 1994). This helps to keep the listener engaged and can also assist the speaker in clarifying their message.

Impact on Speaker-Listener Relationship

It is all rooted in the negative valuation. The dynamic between the speaker and listener can be negatively affected, leading to a potential breakdown in the relationship or future interactions (Tyler & Feldman, 2004). Positive valuation is a precise of which infers that in order to maintain a positive speaker-listener relationship, employing active constructive responding—validating and building upon the speaker's points—can foster a more collaborative and supportive interaction (Gable, Reis, Impett, & Asher, 2004).

Maintaining Relational Shifts

Listeners can focus on duration and time. Breaking it up or requesting break to process are all necessities. Chunking information, to enhance information retention, listeners can practice chunking information, a strategy where content is broken down into smaller, manageable units, which reduces cognitive load (Miller, 1956).

Conclusion

It important to note that these responses can vary greatly, and I’m attempting depending on the individual listener's tolerance for ambiguity, their interest in the subject matter, their motivation to understand the speaker, and their prior experiences with similar communication challenges. To address the challenges posed by cognitive load and its affective consequences, listeners can employ various strategies. The number one strategy is self insights into why and while above are evidence-based methods that listeners can use to overcome issues related to cognitive load. By using these strategies, listeners can better manage their cognitive load and maintain positive communication. It is important to consider that these strategies may need to be adapted to suit individual preferences and specific communication contexts.

Reference:

Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge University Press.

Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. MIT Press.

Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, J., ... & Devins, G. (2004). Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11(3), 230-241.

Gross, J. J. (2002). Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive, and social consequences. Psychophysiology, 39(3), 281-291.

Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 708.

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Rogers, C. R. (1975). Empathic: An unappreciated way of being. The Counseling Psychologist, 5(2), 2-10.

Watzlawick, P., Beavin Bavelas, J., & Jackson, D. D. (2011). Pragmatics of human communication: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies and paradoxes. WW Norton & Company.

King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects of teaching children how to question and how to explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 338-368.

Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81-97.

Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., Impett, E. A., & Asher, E. R. (2004). What do you do when things go right? The intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 228.

Bloom, L., & Lahey, M. (1978). Language development and language disorders. Wiley.

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem-solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285. doi:10.1016/0364-0213(88)90023-7

Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Prentice-Hall.

Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 133-168). Guilford Press.

Rubin, D. L. (1992). Nonlanguage factors affecting undergraduates' judgments of nonnative English-speaking teaching assistants. Research in Higher Education, 33(4), 511-531.

Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2004). The functional architecture of human empathy. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3(2), 71-100.

Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(4), 296-320.

Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101(3), 371-395.

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem-solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257-285.

Tyler, J. M., & Feldman, R. S. (2004). Deflecting threat to one's image: Dissembling personal information as a self-presentation strategy. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 26(1), 25-35.