Hacker News Reader

Comment by nightowl_games | Hacker News Reader

Upspeaking is subconsciously used as a defense mechanism. It is advertising a lack of confidence, which is intended to draw a cooperative rather than combative response. It is signalling that "I am unsure of what I am saying". It is based off of the vocal intention of inquisition. It is a subconscious defense mechanism. The bias you speak of is omnipresent. It is also within the speaker. Think about that. The speaker chooses to deploy a style that will bias the listener to view the speaker in a certain way. The bias being present in the speaker is the key factor to understanding this phenomenon. The experiment that I propose is: if the bias was gone, would the speaker still use this speaking technique?

View on HN

I'm surprised an assertion this strong with zero attestation and the hint of pseudoscientificism is still alive on HN. Anyone living through the 00s (and perhaps even still today) will recognise rising intonation as a social affectation, much the same as vocal fry. Use of it was regular in friendship groups I was in; including when dunking on each other, which is rather the opposite of wanting a cooperative response.

I feel as though your appeal to censorship is emboldened by your sense that I have enfringed on some social code regarding sexism.

I appreciate your counter anecdata, and I recognize that it offers a counter argument to my assertions.

I don't think that means we should take my post down. Do you truly believe that? Do you believe in such limiting of speech? Have I committed a thought crime by thinking that using up speak during a presentation is a defense mechanism? Is it possible I am sometimes right?

I hold that it's possible that I am sometimes wrong. Do you allow that perhaps I am sometimes right?

Do you think this post should be taken down too?

Are you able to introspect on your social groups usage of upspeak and ponder a reason as to it's origin? Perhaps it's advertising a set of values?

Apologies if my earlier post came off as peevish. I would not want your comment to be removed, and to my mind there is nothing sexist about it. I am just constantly surprised that, in a community that seems to pride itself on putative rationality, we often end up swimming in reductive "just-so" stories that co-incidentally agree with the cynical take du jour. I did pick on yours, which is partially bad luck, but also the idea that the voodoo you mention is so comprehensive and airtight that it can diagnose me and everyone I know over the internet with approval-seeking seems particularly ludicrous.

I don't want to dump on your idea too much. It's very possible there's a kernel of truth to it—I know I have noticed sometimes that people use higher voices (as a whole, rather than a cadence) when they don't want to offend. But I think we would all be better served if we learned to start with questions and calls for discussion, than trying to claim universal truth and quickly being refuted.

You know, the speaker is quite often NOT choosing this "technique". The speaker simply speaks focusing on content and that is what voice does, whether innately or because brain mimics other people speaking.

No beginner speaker is in complete conscious control over every detail. Nor are they expected to be, really.

GP never said this was a conscious decision. Most of the time the speaker doesn't realize they're doing it. It's similar to body language.

> The speaker chooses to deploy a style [...] The bias being present in the speaker is the key factor to understanding this phenomenon. The experiment that I propose is: if the bias was gone, would the speaker still use this speaking technique?

> . . . subconsciously used as a defense mechanism

> It is a subconscious defense mechanism.

Clearly they mean the "choice" is subconscious. Perhaps poor wording but only if you ignore the rest of the comment is it unclear what they mean.

I appreciate your statements here. You are correct. It's an unconscious choice. Remember: the bias exists in the speaker.

That does not make any sense. You are projecting own feelings into speaker and then claiming speaker somehow want you to have those feelings.

I can't make heads or tails what you mean here. Please explain why you think they are "projecting own feelings".

This is some wild ass projection. Stop trying to read anything into learned speaking manners.

Maybe the speaker is defensive because others in the workplace don’t allow the speaker space to share their ideas.

Maybe the speaker is actually a head of broccoli.

Both of our ideas are speculative at best, and to attempt to discredit the GP's point via speculative refutes does nothing but polarize the conversation further.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com