I recently had a quick conversation with my brother, who lives in South Florida. We are living completely separate lives with mostly different long and short term goals, but our quick conversation was understood by both of us due to our mutual understanding of our dreams and goals. This mutual understanding, or common ground, had been established over the past couple of face-to-face meetings, as we realized that we were growing up and needed to somehow become more down to earth, entrepreneurial, profitable , etc....
Bro: Toys..!
Al: No way. how?
Bro: believe me. i have a connect. he'll show me the game.
Al: this isn't a game its supposed to be a business.
Bro: fine.
In the preceding conversation, my brother initiated the conversation with a very vague noun: toys. I immediately asked myself "What?" upon receipt of the message, but this confusion very quickly faded. From our common ground that had developed over 18 years, I knew that it was one of his (crazy) business ideas. The single noun 'toy' was part of the presentation phase, but it didn't have to be very elaborate since I knew he wasn't actually excited about toys, but more specifically excited about the prospect of being able to sell toys. Due to our common ground, the acceptance phase came soon after the presentation phase., when I wrote "No way". Once he received my response, there was necessarily a need for existing common ground on his part too. That is to say, he needed ( and did indeed know ) that I often play the devil's advocate.
Al: i shot it down now, more details might revive it. hit me up.
Bro: i'll tell you right now. hes shown me the figures.
At this point, I felt a bit lost. I could not be sure if he was referring to action figures or monetary figures. Both were important, but obviously we needed to speak in more details about the situation.
Bro: its a slow process, but its sustainable. no large investment needed.
Al: sure, but are the toys worth it? im not inclined to go forward.
Bro: of course you're not.
The quick conversation ended here, but we both understood it could be brought up at a later, more appropriate time. We didn't have to communicate this, it was part of our common ground in doing business together that all opportunities should be accepted or rejected only upon inspection and proof of the appropriateness of the matter.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
It's interesting that you talk about grounding as more than just the language you use here. I expected references to grounding of phrases, which you have here with the toys example. But, you also have an example where you have grounded your actions and even your interaction with your brother. You both expect your roles in this conversation and have a mutual understanding of what those roles are. This can make communication faster and maybe easier, but it might limit what you say to each other or how you act if you stay within these bounds too strictly. It's a cool way of looking at grounding that I hadn't thought of before.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a very good example of the accepted use of instant messaging in which users begin and end chat sessions throughout a conversation due to the informality of instant messaging and the exploitation of existing common ground. Assuming the same roles, such as devil’s advocate, is definitely an interesting way to look at grounding as it sure does facilitate communication when our roles are understood by the other person. It would be interesting to see how this conversation parallels other similar conversations you have had with your brother to see if the same roles are assumed and the same types of acceptances are used.
ReplyDelete