Conversation Irritants: II

In this Part II of a little collection of conversation irritants that people use to "tweak" each other at work, I emphasize the use of irrelevance and ambiguity. As in Part I, I'm writing this as a field manual designed for someone who wants to dominate and intimidate others at work by using these malicious techniques without getting caught at it. I've written it as if I'm advising you how to converse maliciously, and I'll use the name Charlie for your conversational partner. Keep in mind that I'm writing in this form only for clarity — I'm not advocating the use of these techniques.

Here are three more conversation irritants:

Make irrelevant additional comments

Charlie sometimes makes an unconditional assertion, or an unconditional conjecture, as in, "We have an opportunity here to control several emerging markets with our new app generator." To irritate Charlie no end, make a comment — either supportive or contradictory — that deflects the discussion into irrelevance. For example, "Yes, emerging markets present lots of opportunities. I'm thinking flubber here."

Charlie wanted to start a conversation about the company's app generator. But you've now deflected the conversation into multiple new unrelated vistas, one of which involves the mystical substance called flubber, from the 1997 film of the same name, which was a remake of the 1961 classic, "The Absent-Minded Professor".

You sounded supportive, because you started your comment with "Yes." But from there you went to someplace crazily irrelevant: flubber. To redirect the flow back to the widget generator, Charlie must take a contradictory position, instead of the visionary position he prefers. He'll feel frustrated, and he might not know why, which can add to his sense of frustration.

Contradictory irrelevant comments can be just as effective. They create in Charlie an urge to offer a refutation, which takes the conversation further still into irrelevance.

Use ambiguity as a frustration tool

Ambiguous comments and ambiguous responses to questions can be especially frustrating for listeners, because they compel listeners to ask for clarification as if they don't understand the comment. For achieving ambiguity, pronouns can be powerful. For example, Charlie might ask, "When did Sheila say Martha thought it would be ready for testing?" You can then respond, "She didn't know exactly, but she says it won't be this week." Using the pronoun she in response to a question about two women is inherently confusing, and therefore quite possibly frustrating for Charlie, who must ask what you mean by she.

Acronyms, Ambiguous comments and ambiguous
responses to questions can be
especially frustrating for listeners,
because they compel listeners to
ask for clarification as if they
don't understand the commentinitialisms, jargon, and little-used terminology are other tools of confusion and frustration. Those who might be less familiar with the terms you've used must then ask for clarification, which risks appearing ignorant or unschooled. Extra points: use terms that have multiple meanings. Or make up official-sounding terms and use them as if they were real.

Use placeholder names without referents

Placeholder names are a category of filler language. Another category of filler language is embolalia, discussed in "Embolalia and Stuff Like That: I," Point Lookout for May 15, 2013. Embolalia are monosyllabic nonwords that mark time while we gather our thoughts or while we plan what we're about to say. In English, examples of embolalia are "uh," "um, "er," "like," and "eh."

Placeholder names usually serve a function similar to that of embolalia, but they're a step or two up the conceptual ladder. They include words such as thingie, thingumebob, thingamajig, whatsit, whatchamacallit, whatnot, gizmo, doohickey, and widget. Or for people, whosit, whatsisname, and whatsername. But in our application, placeholder names can be a tool for generating frustration, when we use them with insufficient indication of their referents — what they're holding their places for.

For example, when Charlie asks, "What's the meaning of the agenda item 'Resolve the iteration question,'" you can respond, "You know that, Charlie, it's when the app generator blows up for thingamajig iterations." This nonexplanation forces him to ask for further clarification. For extra zing, use a condescending tone.

These tactics all rely on a strategy of deniability. They offend, obfuscate, or insult in ways that are difficult for Charlie to call out accusingly, unless he's willing to risk seeming overly sensitive or even paranoid. In that way, they afford you protection while you go about irritating him.   First issue in this series   Top    Next Issue

Are you fed up with tense, explosive meetings? Are you or a colleague the target of a bully? Destructive conflict can ruin organizations. But if we believe that all conflict is destructive, and that we can somehow eliminate conflict, or that conflict is an enemy of productivity, then we're in conflict with Conflict itself. Read 101 Tips for Managing Conflict to learn how to make peace with conflict and make it an organizational asset. Order Now!

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Effective Communication at Work:

Controlling Condescension

Condescension is one reason why healthy conflict becomes destructive. It's a conversational technique that many use without thinking, and others use with aggressive intention. Either way, it can hurt everyone involved.

The Ups and Downs of American Handshakes: II

Where the handshake is a customary business greeting, it's possible to offend accidentally. Here's Part II of a set of guidelines for handshakes in the USA.

Ethical Debate at Work: I

When we decide issues at work on any basis other than the merits, we elevate the chances of making bad decisions. Here are some guidelines for ethical debate.

That Was a Yes-or-No Question: II

When, in the presence of others, someone asks you "a simple yes or no" question, beware. Chances are that you're confronting a trap. Here's Part II of a set of suggestions for dealing with the yes-or-no trap.

Six Traps in Email or Text: II

Collaboration requires communication. For many, communicating often takes place in email and text message systems. But much of the effort expended in communication is dedicated to resolving confusions that we created for ourselves. Here are four examples.

See also Effective Communication at Work for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming July 23: Microdelegation

Microdelegation is a style of delegation in which the delegator unintentionally communicates the task to the subordinate in such detail and so repetitively that the subordinate is offended. As a result of this delegation style, many subordinates feel distrusted or suspected of fraud or goldbricking. Available here and by RSS on July 23.

And on July 30: What the Dunning-Kruger Effect Actually Is

Although the Dunning-Kruger Effect is widely recognized, people describe it — and understand it — in many different ways. Some of these expressions are misleading. Proceed with caution. Available here and by RSS on July 30.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenaXXxGCwVgbgLZDuRner@ChacDjdMAATPdDNJnrSwoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info