Contrary to the law of midday meals, some things hardly need to be worked for in order to be earned. They can be earned, in other words, for a lesser price than it seems they are worth. In even other words, so as to balance the books of the linguistic expression economy, a part of what is earned must be considered free.
Like so many posts before it, this one’s opening statement was prompted by a single example presenting itself assertively, seeking recognition. Expansion of this single example to the plural ‘some things’ is merely a confident guess.
Caution: inflected forms of the controversial singular they are present in what follows.
On with it.
Reiterating the opinion expressed by the person with whom you’re speaking is at once one of the easiest things to do and among those negotiation tactics having the greatest potential of building rapport. People very much like to hear their opinions echoed by another. It lifts them to a plateau. The suggestion that the echo may be a largely self-serving device of the echoer is likely to be met with denial, for the one whose opinion is being reflected back on themself will not entertain notions that threaten to curtail their moment of self-importance. Provided they recognize that their favorable impression of themself in this context is owed to and depends on the echoer, they will be willing to make concessions to the other side in an effort to prolong the experience of looking down from cloud nine. This, then, is how talks can be replete with goodwill that, while perhaps only genuine from one party, is effectively equivalent to being genuine from both.
A caveat: excessive reiteration not only comes across as pathetic lip service from someone without opinions of their own, it’s dangerous. Hearing yourself speak words you don’t agree with is halfway towards adopting the belief they represent. Governments know this. Examples include Eric Blair’s “fictional” 19(48), WWII Germany, and recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools across the country.
As long as we’re talking about conversations, I’ll keep writing.
Take three people, whose names are Four, Five, and Six. They begin talking about subject A, and continue for some time. Subject A is a conundrum that all three of them are cooperatively trying to solve. After awhile, Five has had enough, and walks out of the room, or falls asleep, or is in some other way no longer a part of the conversation. The conversation continues between Four and Six and, as conversations do, evolves from subject A into subject A1, which, as the notation suggests, is related to subject A. Four and Six are really hitting it off, and they continue talking long enough for the conversation to evolve yet again into subject A2. Around this time, Five walks back into the room, or wakes up, or is in some other way a part of the conversation again. Given their absence during the A1 portion, Five is faced with having to infer how Four and Six got from A to A2. The result of the inference is a new A1, privately kept in Five’s mind, which satisfies the criteria of bridging A to A2, but is probably different than the actual A1 the conversation evolved into. Here’s what matters in the general case: the greater the number of possible conversation branches satisfying the given criteria, the more likely a solution will be discovered. In this particular example, we now have two A1’s, so that the conundrum that is subject A is more likely to be solved with Five leaving in the middle of the discussion than if they had been a participant for its entirety! I imagine this idea must have some applicability in computer architecture and software.