The Things We Don't Say
Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker discusses why people use indirect speech rather than saying exactly what they mean, exploring how language serves dual purposes: communicating information while establishing social relationships. Through examples ranging from fundraising dinners to diplomatic exchanges, Pinker explains that indirectness often protects relationships and dignity, though it can sometimes have tragic consequences.
Summary
In this episode of Hidden Brain, host Shankar Vedantam interviews Steven Pinker, a Harvard psychologist who studies language and social relations. The conversation centers on why humans routinely fail to say what they mean, drawing parallels to Hans Christian Andersen's "The Emperor's New Clothes" to illustrate how most people act as courtiers rather than truth-tellers.
Pinker begins with a personal anecdote about being recruited to attend a fundraising dinner with a university president and a wealthy donor. He describes how both parties understood the transaction at hand—a potential large donation in exchange for naming a program and intellectual access—yet neither could openly state this explicitly. Doing so would transform the relationship from one of warmth and mutual respect into a purely transactional one. The actual financial negotiation was deliberately kept "out of earshot," allowing the public interaction to focus on intellectual connection rather than quid pro quo.
Pinker explains that language operates on two simultaneous levels: as a channel for information exchange and as an instrument for establishing social relationships. The type of relationship matters enormously—whether it's one of friendship, intimacy, dominance, or pure transaction—and people often cement relationships through indirect signals rather than explicit verbal declarations.
The discussion moves to political examples, including Nikki Haley's response to Donald Trump's insult with "bless your heart," which in Southern dialect carries subtle dismissive connotations while maintaining plausible deniability. Pinker notes that the phrase signals confidence without engaging in direct conflict, and that savvy listeners understand such coded language through a principle of relevance and cooperation.
Various types of indirect speech are explored: protective lies told to preserve feelings (complimenting unflattering outfits or bad artwork), humble bragging (where someone appears self-deprecating while actually signaling high status), veiled threats (like those in The Sopranos), and innuendo. The author Bruce Feiler's magazine assignment to bribe maitre d's demonstrates how indirectness actually enables transactions that would fail if stated directly—holding a $20 bill while mentioning "cancellations" worked every time, whereas explicit bribery would have caused outrage.
Pinker emphasizes that breaching tacit assumptions of social relationships carries emotional costs: awkwardness, embarrassment, or outrage. The fiction that friends care infinitely about each other's welfare—despite harboring critical thoughts—underlies stable relationships. International diplomacy similarly relies on symbolic acts and respectful posturing to establish relationships between unequal nations.
However, Pinker also acknowledges that indirectness has serious limits and dangers. The crash of Korean Air 801 in 1997 resulted from crew members failing to directly communicate a life-threatening problem to the captain due to hierarchical social dynamics, resulting in tragedy. In such high-stakes situations, directness becomes ethically necessary.
The concept of "radical honesty," which advocates saying everything on one's mind without filter, is presented and critiqued. Pinker argues it's unworkable because constant unguarded honesty would destroy all long-term relationships; 17th-century philosopher Blaise Pascal observed that "if everyone said what was on their minds, there would not be four friends in the world." The movie Tootsie illustrates this paradox: people claim to desire brutal honesty from romantic partners, yet when given it directly, they reject it violently.
The conversation concludes with Pinker's wife challenging him to practice his own theory by attempting to bribe a maitre d' at the River Cafe in Brooklyn. Despite his expertise, he was defeated by the sight of two attractive female maitre d's, realizing that any innuendo directed at one would be spotted by the other, and he ultimately abandoned the attempt.
About this episode
From childhood, we're taught that honesty is the best policy. Yet in everyday life, we hedge, soften our words, and leave things unsaid. This week, we talk with psychologist Steven Pinker about why indirect speech is such a fundamental part of human relationships.
Key Insights
- Pinker argues that language must simultaneously convey information and establish a particular type of social relationship, and stating transactional goals explicitly (like a donation request at a fundraising dinner) transforms a relationship from one of warmth to one of pure quid pro quo.
- Pinker claims that people maintain relationships by adhering to fictions—such as the assumption that friends infinitely respect each other—and that blurting out critical private thoughts about even close friends would corrode these fictions and destroy relationships.
- Pinker explains that indirect speech often works because listeners apply a principle of relevance and cooperation, puzzling out what an oblique statement means by asking what intention would explain why someone said it (as with Nikki Haley's 'bless your heart').
- Pinker demonstrates that indirectness can actually enable social transactions that would fail if stated directly, citing how offering a bribe through innuendo succeeds while explicit quid pro quo fails because it preserves the dignity of the recipient's authority.
- Pinker argues that the danger of breaching tacit relationship assumptions is that it introduces awkwardness or outrage, changing the balance from egalitarian warmth to one party holding power over the other (particularly relevant in contexts like supervisor-employee or professor-student relationships).
- Pinker contends that radical honesty is incompatible with stable human relationships because long-term cooperation depends on not voicing every critical thought, and if all unguarded thoughts were made public, it would destroy friendships and professional relationships.
- Pinker shows that the Korean Air 801 crash illustrates when indirectness becomes tragic: the crew's reluctance to directly communicate danger to the captain due to hierarchical social dynamics directly caused loss of life.
- Pinker notes that people paradoxically desire brutal honesty in romance (as shown in the film Tootsie) while actually rejecting it violently when offered, revealing hypocrisy about how we actually tolerate directness.
Topics
Transcript
Hey there, Shankar here. Do you feel like you've lost your ability to focus? Do you start a task and then quickly find yourself distracted by something else? We explore the research on attention and how you can begin to reclaim your ability to focus in the latest episode on our new YouTube channel. Go to youtube.com slash at hidden brain or click the link in the show notes for today's episode. Okay, here for today's episode. Okay, here's today's show. This is Hidden Brain. I'm Shankar Vedantam. When children are very small, their minds are often an open book. They say what they mean. They blurt out things. This can come across as both cruel and charming. The little…
Full transcript available for MurmurCast members
Sign Up to AccessMore from Hidden Brain
Do You Have Trouble Sleeping?
This Hidden Brain episode explores two interconnected health crises: sleep deprivation and chronic pain. Sleep researcher Chris Barnes discusses how insufficient sleep causes accidents, poor decision-making, and unethical behavior, while psychologist Rachel Zofnes explains how pain is biopsychosocial rather than purely physical, and how understanding this can help manage chronic conditions.
Why Am I Unhappy?
This Hidden Brain episode explores the internal emotional obstacles to lasting happiness, featuring psychologist George Lowenstein discussing how negative emotions, the hedonic treadmill, and our evolutionary design for survival rather than happiness undermine well-being. A second segment with psychologist Alison Ledgerwood examines the negativity bias—our tendency to focus on negative information over positive—and strategies for achieving emotional balance.
When Bad Things Happen to Good People
The episode explores how people respond to tragedy and suffering through interviews with historian Kate Bowler, who was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer at age 35, and psychologist Lisa Miller, who studies spirituality from a neuroscientific perspective. Both discuss how cultural beliefs about fairness and control shape our reactions to adversity, and how spiritual practices can help people navigate life's uncertainties.
How to Make a Difference: Part 2
Martin Seligman discusses how people develop agency—the belief that their actions can create change—and argues that this capacity is a learnable skill rather than an innate trait. Through research and practical techniques, Seligman explains how shifting explanatory styles, building efficacy through small wins, and using imagination can help people overcome learned helplessness and flourish.
How to Make a Difference: Part 1
Martin Seligman discusses his research on learned helplessness and agency, explaining how people's explanatory styles—whether they view setbacks as temporary or permanent—shape their resilience, motivation, and life outcomes. He argues that the development of agency as a concept throughout human history has been the psychological driver behind human progress and innovation.