Why do we talk?

[Destroypuppy]

It was about 5 years ago, I asked myself this question. A simple question, but no one could answer it for me.

Now I believe that with the help of socionics, I can answer it.

At first I thought it was to compare our values with others to be reassured that we are good people.

Now I think we talk because we want others to help us see the positive side of the perspectives that we value in the negative.
For example, if I complain about being tired while at work, I want people to help me take better care of my health.

[Destroypuppy]

I see humains as protons and electrons now. Our negative perspectives are the electrons because we share it with others (we complain) and our core (protons) is our positive perspectives of reality. When we interact with someone else, it's like doing chemistry. We shoot our electrons at the other person, if our elements are compatible it makes a good reaction. In duality I believe that we fuse.

[Destroypuppy]

I could develop about this but my understanding of it all isn't complete.

[Satan]

It was about 5 years ago, I asked myself this question. A simple question, but no one could answer it for me.

Now I believe that with the help of socionics, I can answer it.

At first I thought it was to compare our values with others to be reassured that we are good people.

Now I think we talk because we want others to help us see the positive side of the perspectives that we value in the negative.
For example, if I complain about being tired while at work, I want people to help me take better care of my health.

why do you talk.

if you complain about being tired at work, it means you're making excuses for your lack of competence. and shouldn't be trusted with important things - maybe left with menial tasks.

[Esaman]

What completeness can you hope to achieve when considering only FeNi component of communication. Accept your EIE-dom.

[Radio]

you seem like you would be very annoying irl.

[krieger]

vanity.

[JWC3]

We talk because we're able to. It really doesn't get more convoluted than that. You could ask "Why are we able to talk?" Which is also an incredibly simple answer; "It was once evolutionarily advantageous to develop effcient communication."

[ashlesha]

vanity.

i think this is one reason but you could call it self-expression or validation-seeking and it would be the same thing. it makes me kind of uncomfortable to think about how on some level i choose what i say in order to create a certain image because its something i'd rather not consciously consider. but i think its also a basic need.

We talk because we're able to. It really doesn't get more convoluted than that. You could ask "Why are we able to talk?" Which is also an incredibly simple answer; "It was once evolutionarily advantageous to develop effcient communication."

but why was it evolutionarily advantageous? i think its an interesting question. getting our needs met, like puppy said, seems like the cleanest answer, but i want to hear what other people think.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Homo sapiens sapiens has an advantage over other species such as Homo neanderthalensis by being a social species, and the ability to communicate in such an effective way is key to this. Being able to pass down accrued knowledge is of fantastic importance.

[JWC3]

but why was it evolutionarily advantageous? i think its an interesting question. getting our needs met, like puppy said, seems like the cleanest answer, but i want to hear what other people think.

It allows an individual to pass learned behavior to their offspring.

[kopyk]

vanity.

I agree. Imo, pointless vanity being one of humanity's pillars makes it more disgusting.

[Esaman]

We talk because we're able to.

Nope, there is generally motivation, function, purpose behind such things even if one is not aware of why he is doing it.

You could ask "Why are we able to talk?" Which is also an incredibly simple answer; "It was once evolutionarily advantageous to develop effcient communication."

Yes, but the question likely assumes that and detail on why is it advantageous is asked for.

Sure, exchange of perspectives on value of things for expanding and improving ones own is one of reasons of talking.

[Esaman]

@labcoat @Ath
What are talking about?

[Reficulris]

It allows an individual to pass learned behavior to their offspring.

It also allows for more effective strategies than "lion, run!"

For example "build a gun and shoot the damned thing before it eats me!"

Also, language is a signifyer of intelligence which (due to the above) was sexually more appealing than "unf unf" (no offence @woofwoofl). "let a thousand roses bloom from our graves and a thousand generations come to dust and still our love will be sung off" kinda got the cave-women hot and bothered.

Asking "why can we talk" is like asking "why do we build buildings". It's all due to developmental variety which in some cases was advantagious and in other cases just didn't get us killed (people always asume that if something isn't selected out it's advantagious, which is false, it just wasn't disadvantagious).

So I agree with JWC3 and EL that it can be explained by evolution and that things like "vanity" have little to do with it. (also due to vanity being a kinda vague and highly morally leaden word)

[kopyk]

@Esaman hard to explain. Its like... Who am I to speak? Why are my words so important? No one asked me to. I'm just another shit-producing human meatbag, not a god or sth special, so spouting off a bunch of complicated language can feel very vain to me. The feeling/notion of that perpetually lurks in the back of my mind. When I imagine convos in my head (like I often do) I occasionally end up cringing to a lot of the idiotic ideas that pop into my head. I think I don't wanna be dragged into any spotlight unless I'm really driven about sth. I feel somewhat similarly towards some of those who step into it - TED talkers for instance. Just a bunch of postmodern, western, self-important, "passionate" ppl getting to talk about what interests them, and sometimes they'll relate themselves to the topic too. ugh...

[Esaman]

No one asked me to.

I just did.

postmodern

+ solipsist with existential issues. You sure are justified in worrying about being such.

[Reficulris]

@Esaman hard to explain. Its like... Who am I to speak? Why are my words so important? No one asked me to. I'm just another shit-producing human meatbag, not a god or sth special, so spouting off a bunch of complicated language can feel very vain to me. The feeling/notion of that perpetually lurks in the back of my mind. When I imagine convos in my head (like I often do) I occasionally end up cringing to a lot of the idiotic ideas that pop into my head. I think I don't wanna be dragged into any spotlight unless I'm really driven about sth. I feel somewhat similarly towards some of those who step into it - TED talkers for instance. Just a bunch of postmodern, western, self-important, "passionate" ppl getting to talk about what interests them, and sometimes they'll relate themselves to the topic too. ugh...

hmm.. Seems to imply a lot of self loathing and negativity towards the human species.

Sure, language has evolved far past the necesity it might have been in the "run, lion" example. This is true for all our endeavors in a way. Western civilization has basically achieved the point where we don't actually encouter the "survival" aspect of our abilities anymore. I'm not sure this is true in development countries, i'll not draw conclusions for them.

As for why, it's basically sexual selection. Intelligence, the ability to create results in the world, social structure, the ability to rally people around and actually enforce those results are sexy. Things that are sexy increase the likelyhood of being passed on to a lot of offspring. Those that will have the "sexy" trait will in turn look more sexy and give that trait through.

As for "who am I to talk", yes, that's basically nihilism, the acute and utter awareness of the uselessness of it all, the lack of clear, objective, nondoubtable goals in life. One's awareness has been raised to the point where one actually doubts his or her own needs and abilities and purpose. This on the long term could be selected out (if you commit suicide for instance, or choose not to procreate) or not if it's not detremental to your mating. The question is one to answer on your own, do you need purpose? does that need to be external? Can you actually reconcile with the "vanity" of just being hedonistic or are you going to follow a greater good? If the latter, what good will that be? Where will you find it?. If neither the "die in agony" option is still there. Evolution doesn't care about our existential fear, it goes on even if you oppose it. There is no exit.

So, to paraphrase Sartre: "you have the freedom to do anything with your life and so you have to take the responsibility for it".

I myself don't see communication as vain or in the negative light you see it in. It's enjoyable, it's like dancing, fighting, fucking, it's a way to encounter the other, to reflect on myself, to tussle, to play, to create, to destroy. It's part of the pallete of life, like music, painting... It's not Grandiouse, or godlike. It's complex, but only because we think of it as complex. In the end it just is, it IS and you really cannot judge it without giving it strength.

[InvisibleJim]

Because we like the sound of our own voices.

[ashlesha]

re: vanity.
i remember in an english class the professor explaining that when you're reading a story, no detail is irrelevant. the author included it for a reason, to move the story along, create a metaphor, whatever. everything that people do that other people can see is a form of self expression on some level whether we acknowledge it or not. every time we talk, we are adding on to our personal story and creating ourselves. even if we dress for comfort, we are aware on some level that other people will see our clothing. even if somebody is hellbent that they don't care what other people think, not giving a fuck validates their self-image and therefore is also a form of self-expression.

[Reficulris]

Because we like the sound of our own voices.

Oh boy do I like the sound of my voice! That's why I read out loud every post I write!

//flufflebuffle out!

[JWC3]

Nope, there is generally motivation, function, purpose behind such things even if one is not aware of why he is doing it.


Yes, but the question likely assumes that and detail on why is it advantageous is asked for.

Sure, exchange of perspectives on value of things for expanding and improving ones own is one of reasons of talking.

Idividual motivations do not comment on the impact speech has had on the species as a whole.

[Esaman]

Idividual motivations do not comment on the impact speech has had on the species as a whole.

Individual's and specie's interests are one to significant degree. The function language serves for individual is the function it serves the specie. Now, not just some time in evolutionary past.

[JWC3]

re: vanity.
i remember in an english class the professor explaining that when you're reading a story, no detail is irrelevant. the author included it for a reason, to move the story along, create a metaphor, whatever. everything that people do that other people can see is a form of self expression on some level whether we acknowledge it or not. every time we talk, we are adding on to our personal story and creating ourselves. even if we dress for comfort, we are aware on some level that other people will see our clothing. even if somebody is hellbent that they don't care what other people think, not giving a fuck validates their self-image and therefore is also a form of self-expression.

It's a lot easier for me to visualize a caveman learning speech for some functional purpose rather than because he's a tortured artist who needs others to understand the depths of his agony. As for why we talk still today *shrugs*

[ashlesha]

It's a lot easier for me to visualize a caveman learning speech for some functional purpose rather than because he's a tortured artist who needs others to understand the depths of his agony. As for why we talk still today *shrugs*

lol, well no shit, but there is more than one singular reason we communicate. originally, speech probably had a functional purpose. though we were communicating in various ways before speech for reasons that weren't just practical, like spirituality conveyed on cave walls. "understanding the depths of his agony" is kind of a dismissive and crappy way of describing self-expression, which isn't necessarily anything negative or unusual. you framing it that way in your speech is a reflection of your own way of seeing the world and it communicates your own self-expression. nobody is exempt, its not just an "Fe" thing or an "emo" thing or whatever.

edit: and cavemen have feelings too!

[JWC3]

Individuals and species interests are one to significant degree. The function language serves for individual is the function it serves the specie. Now, not just some time in evolutionary past.

*chuckles* Suicide then is some sort of self-culling that serves a greater purpose for all of mankind. Now I can sleep easy knowing my dead homies were actually the most humanitarian people I've met.

[Reficulris]

*chuckles* Suicide then is some sort of self-culling that serves a greater purpose for all of mankind. Now I can sleep easy knowing my dead homies where actually the most humanitarian people I've met.

There's a philosophical argument for suicide... apparently someone took the time to rationalize that shit!

Edit: Let me edit in a totally valid source for this nugget of wisdom ;-)

[ashlesha]

for the record, i'm aware that things like food come before things like art on maslows heirarchy. i'm not stupid. i'm just isolating something thats interesting to me and talking about it.

(and i'm clarifying because it hurts my ego that people might think i'm that dumb...vanity )

also i think it helps me to understand people better when i'm aware of those sorts of ego needs. knowing that cavemen communicated to get food or whatever is interesting but it doesn't provide me with as much practical insight.

[Reficulris]

lol, well no shit, but there is more than one singular reason we communicate. originally, speech probably had a functional purpose. though we were communicating in various ways before speech for reasons that weren't just practical, like spirituality conveyed on cave walls. "understanding the depths of his agony" is kind of a dismissive and crappy way of describing self-expression, which isn't necessarily anything negative or unusual. you framing it that way in your speech is a reflection of your own way of seeing the world and it communicates your own self-expression. nobody is exempt, its not just an "Fe" thing or an "emo" thing or whatever.

edit: and cavemen have feelings too!

Yeah, but the next question in that line of reasoning is "why did they have the other reasons for communication, E.G. the need for self-expression etc. The answer an evolutionary psychologist would give is "because somewhere, sometime one of the apes got a mutation which wasn't maladaptive and that one ape was succesfull in procreating, as was his offspring.

There is no REASON to the reasons, it's all chance and selection.

for the record, i'm aware that things like food come before things like art on maslows heirarchy. i'm not stupid. i'm just isolating something thats interesting to me and talking about it.

Maslow is not really relevant here, he assumed that socialising was higher in the pyramid of needs, it's actually the other way around, all the higher needs serve the lower needs. If someone was lacking those skills in the primordial setting he'd just die or not get any nice fertile females. Maslow's pre-evolutionary pscychology and is kinda in discredit.

(and i'm clarifying because it hurts my ego that people might think i'm that dumb...vanity )

Vanity is sexually attractive, dumbness is not. Good that you clarify or we'd think you less attractive! ;-)

Seriously, why did you think people thought you were dumb? I didn't see anything above that indicated a lack of respect in any of the few posts above.

also i think it helps me to understand people better when i'm aware of those sorts of ego needs. knowing that cavemen communicated to get food or whatever is interesting but it doesn't provide me with as much practical insight.

It's not just about food, that's the thing. Evolutionary thinking has two selection procedures, adaptive selection (those that cannot run get eaten) and sexual selection (what is interesting to the other sex).

A lot of our higher functions are evolved due to sexual selection and are actually MALADAPTIVE (just not maladaptive enough to get us to die). The analogy is the huge things elks have on their head (can't find the word). Evolutionary thinkers using only the adaptive selection criteria couldn't find a reason why the stupid animals had them! They get stuck in trees, they're heavy, they don't serve a purpose...
Untill they got to sexual selection. It's actually a huge investment for the male elk to carry that thing around. The fact that he still does (and can) signals to the female elk that it's a highly succesfull male elk. Thus, the female elk wants to have baby elk with them. The trait gets passed on.

Similarly, intelligence is in a way massively maladaptive, it gets us in trouble all the time (esp at the level we've reached). Most of the behaviour we do with our massive brains can only be explained by sexual selection rather than adaptive selection since it's completely useless (as others pointed out) past a certain level of intelligence. We don't NEED to have skyscrapers, mona-liza's, hymns to goddesses etc etc etc, it's all just the outcome of sexual selection processes.

So, to get to your question, people have those ego-needs because they're part of a brain composition that serves as an indicator of sexual fitness. This is why emo-artists still get laid. Why some people find intelligent, but physically unattractive people still attractive. Ego-needs are your subjective urge to make yourself visible, to indicate fittness (in your case fertility) etc etc etc.

[Esaman]

*chuckles* Suicide then is some sort of self-culling that serves a greater purpose for all of mankind.

Sure, selflessness is not implied though. Being sexual/gene-pool and very social being what the individual sees as good life is belonging socially, being fit to reproduce, being productive, maybe serving some "bigger purpose" an so on and so forth. So again, interests of individual and entity he is part of can be, should be and often are one.

[JWC3]

for the record, i'm aware that things like food come before things like art on maslows heirarchy. i'm not stupid. i'm just isolating something thats interesting to me and talking about it.

(and i'm clarifying because it hurts my ego that people might think i'm that dumb...vanity )

also i think it helps me to understand people better when i'm aware of those sorts of ego needs. knowing that cavemen communicated to get food or whatever is interesting but it doesn't provide me with as much practical insight.

It's the same for me but with opposing interests. Self-actualization seems trite compared to basic functional necessity. Yo-he-ho or motherese though would be the sort of theories I like, but cultural values likely do play some small role even then despite my lack of interest in the topic.

[ashlesha]

It's the same for me but with opposing interests. Self-actualization seems trite compared to basic functional necessity. Yo-he-ho or motherese though would be the sort of theories I like, but cultural values likely do play some small role even then despite my lack of interest in the topic.

okay, though i'm not really sure you get it...the need for self-expression is universal, not cultural. it just gets done differently in different cultures. i'm not religious but i think understanding the hows and whys of spirituality is pretty important to understanding humans and even myself. that basic spiritual drive exists in me even if it doesn't manifest in me believing in any particular god. self-expression and spirituality are part of humans just like physical hunger is and we are all acting on those drives even if some of us might consider them "trite."

i had to google those terms you used..yo-he-ho is interesting!

[JWC3]

Sure, selflessness is not implied though. Being sexual/gene-pool and very social being what the individual sees as good life is belonging socially, being fit to reproduce, being productive, maybe serving some "bigger purpose" an so on and so forth. So again, interests of individual and entity he is part of can be, should be and often are one.

I don't think individuals are motivated to act based solely on the communal interests of the society they developed in. I don't think that actions necesitate a "bigger-reason" even if it's not considered by the individual taking action and, I don't think any individual's actions necesarily comment on their societal values macro, or micro.

I believe, very adamantly, that people can be completely irrational and completely individualistic. I understand that language would have to necesitate an other and therefore likely a group as well but find the idea that because a group existed individual motivations ceased to as silly.

I would accept the idea if cultural values entails a bunch of people all wanting to eat, but I wouldn't normally attribute that as cultural over an individual need.

[JWC3]

okay, though i'm not really sure you get it...the need for self-expression is universal, not cultural. it just gets done differently in different cultures. i'm not religious but i think understanding the hows and whys of spirituality is pretty important to understanding humans and even myself. that basic spiritual drive exists in me even if it doesn't manifest in me believing in any particular god. self-expression and spirituality are part of humans just like physical hunger is and we are all acting on those drives even if some of us might consider them "trite."

i had to google those terms you used..yo-he-ho is interesting!

I'm saying that I don't think self-expression or spirituality would take precedence over survival needs. In other words, you have to make sure you're well fed enough to survive until tomorrow before you can really care about becoming actualized. Sure that is a drive in American culture today, but we also largely have our survival needs taken care of and are free to spend our time musing on how to correctly assert our oppinion on the internet rather than fiding our next meal.

[krieger]

@labcoat @Ath
What are talking about?

...

your... incredulity is perplexing. i can scarcely stomach that you should be this dense.

[Ainfigur]

We talk because we're humans and humans are amazing.

[Aquagraph]

At the end of this month I'm going to be interacting with another person in solitude without using language at least for a day. I'll tell you how it goes.

[woofwoofl]

Talking is often the most convenient way to relay information from myself to other people, and it'll often be met with more talking, or some other kind of action. Music rules to communicate with, and apparently some people like the way my voice sounds, so I'll do what I can to say more stuff in those cases. If I run out of words, I can sometimes head for the guitar.

[Reficulris]

At the end of this month I'm going to be interacting with another person in solitude without using language at least for a day. I'll tell you how it goes.

That's really cool! I guess your sensitivity for non spoken communication will be heightened.

Are you allowed to grunt and such or just bodylanguage?

Is this something you organise yourself or some kind of experiment/program? Call me intrigued!

[Aquagraph]

Are you allowed to grunt, and such or just bodylanguage?

Grunting, meowing, gestures, purring, touch and so on. No written notes or anything requiring language.

Is this something you organise yourself or some kind of experiment/program? Call me intrigued!

It's a small cabin in the country and we talked about how beautiful it might be to get along like animals do. Much more intuitive, makes nitpicking impossible and, as you said, increases the sensitivity of non-verbal communication.

I hadn't felt an urge to talk to that person much anyways. There's only so much people can say to one another while there are so many things to shut up about and just begin simply observing it as it is. Put art critics in a room with a stunning piece of art, the conflict begins when they've stopped admiring and started stating. Things seem more truthful after they are cast out verbally. It's like locking an answer. Exploration stops right at the moment you have the answer.