I love the first part of Venkatesh Rao’s “The Gervais Principle”, because it speaks so much open-secret-truth about social dynamics, corporate or not. I haven’t read the entire series yet – but here is an absolute gem from Part II.

The entire section below is quoted from The Gervais Principle II: Posturetalk, Powertalk, Babytalk and Gametalk.

Fluent Powertalk

At a Dunder-Mifflin management party, shortly after Michael and Jan disclose their affair to David Wallace, per HR requirements, Wallace casually invites Jim to blow off the party for a while and shoot hoops in the backyard. Once outside, Wallace nonchalantly asks, “So what’s up with Jan and Michael?” He is clearly fishing for information, having observed the bizarre couple dynamics at the party.

Jim replies, “I wouldn’t know…(pregnant pause)…where to begin.” (slight laugh)

David Wallace laughs in return. This is as eloquent as such a short fragment of Powertalk can get. Here are just some of the messages being communicated by the six words and the meaningful pause and laugh.

– Message 1: It is a complex situation (literal).

– Message 2: I understand you think something bizarre is going on. I am confirming your suspicion. It is a bizarre mess, and you should be concerned.

– Message 3: This is the first significant conversation between us, and I am signaling to you that I am fluent in Powertalk.

– Message 4: I know how to communicate useful information while maintaining plausible deniability.

– Message 5: I am not so gratified at this sign of attention from you that I am going to say foolish things that could backfire on me.

– Message 6: I am aware of my situational leverage and the fact that you need me. I am not so overawed that I am giving it all up for free.

– Message 7: I am being non-committal enough that you can pull back or steer this conversation to safer matters if you like. I know how to give others wiggle room, safe outs and exits.

– Message 8: You still have to earn my trust. But let’s keep talking. What do you have that I could use?

The key here is that only Message 1 is comprehensible to the truly Clueless; this is what makes for plausible deniability. You cannot prove that the other messages were exchanged. Losers can partially understand, but not speak Powertalk. To them, Powertalk is a spectator sport.

We can speculate with a fair amount of certainty what someone like Michael would have said in such a situation if his and Jim’s roles had been reversed. He would have been so gratified by the attention that he would have babbled out an incoherent and epic narrative without further prompting. Wallace would have taken the information and walked away without paying.

(Source)

Interpretation

This is such a perfect way to characterize the dynamics of socializing with certain people – especially if they are powerful people – or about serious topics. This passage elucidates the underlying chess game that’s happening in the minds of the two players during this conversation. As they continue to converse, they will both gain and lose positioning and leverage. The number of messages and signals they send to the other side shifts strategically.

During important situations, a conversation is not only a basic information exchange, nor is it some sort of simple contest – it is a multidimensional soup of deeper thinking. This sort of “powertalk” which prevails over basic factual transaction goes over the heads of some people. Understanding how to speak it may be the greatest advantage of social awareness possible to move up the ranks of the corporate ladder, or gain respect from people.

The caveat, of course, is that it’s fairly easy to become manipulative using this sort of dynamic. And people who live in constant negative connotation w.r.t. interpersonal intentions and gamification of social transactions can end up isolated and depressed. Reading this passage reminded me about The Laws of Human Nature by Greene, a book I read years ago. I remember thinking that Greene seemed to have written the book thinking that “the way to gain someone’s trust is to manipulate them into thinking they have the upper hand”, and the negative reviews linked above reinforce my intuition about the author’s oversimplified and controversial views.

Frankly, being able to function and perform in this complex state during conversations may be the sole most useful skill in life, if it is applied with a strong moral compass. After many years scouring the internet and reading troves of old forum boards full of competitive, proud, and non-PC people, I found myself able to understand powertalk well, and I believe this certainly helped me succeed in job interviews and meetings at numerous companies. I could act serious and play the role. It also helped me interact with the older generation, many of whom seem to want power mirrored back at them, as a nod to their own, to confirm intelligence and trustworthiness (see “Message 3” from the quote above). This probably deserves a post of its own.

Good luck, and remember that not everybody is out to get you…

Daniel

Calvin and Hobbes, by Bill Watterson