Michelle: Most communication advice is wrong. The popular idea that 93% of communication is body language? A total myth, according to science. The real magic—and the real danger—is in the words. Mark: Whoa, that's a bold start. You're saying my carefully practiced power-stance is useless? Michelle: Mostly. We’re about to show you how a 0.7-second silence can signal a relationship is ending. Mark: Okay, now I'm listening. That's incredibly specific. Where does this come from? Michelle: This all comes from the work of Elizabeth Stokoe, a professor of social psychology, in her book Talk: The Science of Conversation. It’s a fascinating look under the hood of our daily interactions. Mark: Right, and she's not just an academic locked in a tower. I read that she developed a training method, CARM, that's used by police crisis negotiators and major companies. She analyzes real, high-stakes talk for a living, not just theory. Michelle: Exactly. She's all about the evidence. And that evidence reveals an entire world hidden in plain sight, starting with the very first word of any conversation. She argues that every interaction is like a high-speed racetrack, with rules, hurdles, and a finish line. Mark: A conversational racetrack. I like that. It sounds a lot more intense than just "chatting."

Michelle: It is. Because even the most mundane phone call follows a surprisingly rigid formula. Stokoe points out that most conversation openings have three rapid-fire, reciprocal parts. Think of it as a launch sequence. Mark: A launch sequence for a phone call? Okay, I'm intrigued. What are the steps? Michelle: First, there's the 'summons and answer.' The phone rings, you pick up. Simple. Second, 'greetings and identification.' You say 'Hello,' the other person says 'Hi, it's Mark.' Third, and this is crucial, 'initial inquiries.' The 'how-are-yous.' Mark: The 'how-are-yous' that nobody ever answers honestly. Michelle: Precisely. But their function isn't really to get a detailed health report. It's to complete the social ritual that says, 'We are connected, the track is clear, and we can now proceed to the main reason for the call.' Stokoe uses a simple example from the early 2000s, a call between two friends, Hyla and Nancy. The phone rings, Nancy says 'H'llo:?', Hyla says 'Hi:', Nancy recognizes her voice and gives a brighter 'Hi!', and they immediately trade 'how-are-yous'. It's all over in seconds. Mark: That sounds great when everything's fine. It’s smooth, it’s fast. But what happens when it breaks? What does a broken opening sound like? Does the whole conversation just crash? Michelle: It absolutely can. And this is where the science gets really interesting. Stokoe presents this incredible, and slightly painful, example of a call between a couple, Dana and Gordon. Gordon answers the phone with a normal 'Hello:'. Then... nothing. Mark: Nothing? Michelle: For 0.7 seconds. An eternity on the phone. Then Dana comes in, not with a 'Hello' back, but with, 'Hello where've you been all morning.' Mark: Oof. That is not a greeting. That is an accusation. That's a 'first move,' as she calls it, right? A conversational attack. Michelle: It's a total complaint. She skips the greeting, skips the 'how-are-you,' and goes straight to the problem. Gordon tries to fix it. He responds with a really bright, loud 'Hello!' trying to reset the sequence, to get that reciprocal greeting he was owed. He then answers her question and tries again to get the conversation back on the rails by asking, 'How are you.' Mark: And let me guess, Dana doesn't play along. Michelle: She replies with a flat, smile-less 'I'm okay.' And she doesn't ask him back. The 'how-are-you' is not reciprocated. The conversational engine has stalled, and the red flags are everywhere. That 0.7-second silence and her refusal to follow the script told him everything he needed to know about the trouble they were in. Mark: Oh, I've definitely been on both sides of that call. You can feel that silence. It’s amazing that something so tiny can carry so much weight. It’s like a conversational fingerprint, revealing the entire mood of the relationship in three seconds.

Michelle: Exactly. That silence and Dana's word choice became part of their conversational fingerprint. And Stokoe shows that we are constantly reading these tiny signals to diagnose who people are. She even jokes about a 'Conversation Analytic Personality Diagnostic,' or CAPD. Mark: So we're all amateur psychologists, diagnosing each other based on whether we say 'hi' back properly? Michelle: In a way, yes. We assess people as 'rude' or 'charming' or 'manipulative' based on the turns they take. Think about the person who approaches a group and just starts talking without a 'hello.' Or the friend who texts 'urgh' as a conversation opener. Stokoe's research shows these aren't random acts; they are moves that define the speaker and put everyone else in a specific position. Mark: It makes you so much more aware of your own talk. But it goes deeper than just greetings, right? It's about the specific words we choose. Michelle: It's about every single word. This is where her work has had a huge real-world impact, moving from personal calls to professional settings. She highlights a study done in a doctor's office that is just mind-blowing. Doctors were trying to make sure they'd addressed all of a patient's concerns. Mark: Sure, that makes sense. Get everything out on the table in one visit. Michelle: Right. So they tested two versions of the same question at the end of the consultation. Version one was: 'Is there anything else we need to take care of today?' Version two was: 'Is there some other issue you’d like us to address?' Mark: 'Anything' versus 'some'. That seems like a tiny, almost meaningless difference. Michelle: You'd think so. But the results were staggering. When doctors asked, 'Is there some other issue?', the number of patients who brought up an additional, often important, health concern skyrocketed. Mark: Wow, just one word? That's a huge deal for healthcare. Why does it work? Michelle: Stokoe explains that 'any' is what linguists call negatively polarized. It subtly invites a 'no' response. 'Is there any reason you can't do this?' 'No.' Whereas 'some' is positively polarized. It presumes there is something, making it easier for the patient to voice it. Mark: That is fascinating. It makes you wonder what other single-word changes could transform an interaction. It feels like a conversational superpower. Michelle: It is. Her team applied this to police crisis negotiations. They found that when negotiators asked a person in crisis to 'talk,' it often failed. The person would resist, saying talk is cheap. But when they switched the word to 'speak'—'I want to speak with you'—it was significantly more successful at getting the person to engage. 'Talk' implies a casual chat; 'speak' implies something more serious, more formal, and more respectful.

Mark: This feels like the complete opposite of most communication training I've ever heard of, which is all about 'building rapport' with small talk or using someone's name over and over. Michelle: You've hit on the core of her critique. Stokoe argues that so much conventional advice is based on myths and simulations, not on what actually works in the wild. The whole 'use their name to build rapport' idea? Her research shows it's mostly nonsense. In reality, we use names primarily as a summons, to get someone's attention, like shouting 'Mark!' across a crowded room. Using it randomly in a one-on-one call can feel weird and even manipulative. Mark: That makes so much sense. When a salesperson keeps using my name, it doesn't make me feel connected; it makes me feel like I'm being put through a script. It actually breaks rapport. Michelle: Exactly. And this is why her work is so vital. She replaces these flawed myths with evidence. Take community mediation services. They were struggling to get people to even try mediation. The callers were always angry, convinced their neighbor was the devil, and they wanted action, not talk. Mark: They want the mediator to be a judge, not a referee. Michelle: Precisely. The mediators would explain that they were impartial, that they don't take sides, which is the principle of mediation. But that's the last thing these callers wanted to hear. So Stokoe's team analyzed thousands of calls to see what actually worked. And they found another magic word. Mark: Another one? Okay, what is it? Michelle: 'Willing.' Instead of asking a caller, 'Would you agree to mediation?', which often got a 'no,' the successful mediators would reframe it. They'd say something like, 'So it sounds like you're the kind of person who would be willing to at least sit down and see if we can find a solution.' Mark: Ah, that's brilliant. It's not about the process anymore. It's about the caller's identity. Michelle: You got it. No one wants to be the 'unwilling' or 'unreasonable' one. By using that word, the mediator aligns with the caller's self-perception. The caller sees themselves as the good guy, the one who is trying to fix things. So when asked if they are 'willing,' the natural answer is 'yes, of course I am!' It completely changed the success rate of these services.

Mark: It's incredible. The whole book seems to be about revealing these invisible levers in our conversations. It's not about grand gestures; it's about the 0.7-second pause, the choice between 'any' and 'some,' or the strategic use of the word 'willing.' Michelle: And that's the core of it. Conversation isn't just an exchange of information. It's a system for action. Every turn, every word, every pause is a move on the board, building an identity and getting something done, whether that's ordering a coffee, saving a life, or ending a relationship. Mark: So the takeaway isn't to memorize scripts or become a robotic talker. It's to become a better observer of your own conversations. Just notice the openings, the tiny word choices. What's actually happening on the racetrack? Michelle: Exactly. And we'd love to hear what you notice. Share the most interesting conversational quirk you've observed this week with the Aibrary community. What's a 'first move' or a 'mis-greeting' you've seen in the wild? Mark: This is Aibrary, signing off.