The Paradox of Carefully Chosen Words

In their simplest form, paradoxes are self-contradictory statements. For example: "This statement is false." If the statement is false, then it must be true. And if it's true, then it must be false. But we also apply the term paradox to situations that seem to contain inherent contradictions. When our actions cause effects that contradict our intentions, we might view those effects as paradoxical.

An example is the Dunning-Kruger Effect, which describes our tendency to confuse confidence with competence. [Kruger 1999] Because incompetent individuals are less able than their more competent peers to recognize competence when they see it, the incompetent have a greater tendency to interpret confidence as evidence of competence. And they interpret behavior that seems tentative or halting as evidence of incompetence. Thus, speakers who are unaware of their own confusion might seem confident, and therefore competent, when, in fact, they're clueless. Speakers who are aware of their own limitations might seem tentative — and therefore less competent — when, in fact, their tentativeness might actually arise from greater awareness of the full complexity of the issue at hand.

The effects are most dramatic for spoken communication, when we can observe pace and rhythm, but they're also observable in written communication, in construction and vocabulary.

In conversation, people who have command of the subject at hand sometimes exercise great care in what they say, so as to reduce the chance of being misinterpreted. That cautiousness can reduce the pace of their speech, and make its rhythm uneven. To listeners, cautiousness can appear to indicate incompetence relative to the subject at hand, or perhaps even dishonesty. When this happens, careful word choice produces the opposite of the intended effect. Instead of reducing the chance of misinterpretation, it actually invites listeners to misinterpret what the speaker is saying. That's one form of the paradox of carefully chosen words.

In that Choosing your words carefully
can unintentionally create an
impression of incompetence
and even deceitfulnesssame conversation, people who lack command of the subject, or who care little about the veracity of their statements, can produce contributions to the conversation with ease and fluency. To listeners, ease and fluency can appear to indicate confidence, competence, and credibility, even when these speakers might actually be relatively less than knowledgeable at best — or worse, dishonest. That's the second form of the paradox of carefully chosen words.

People tend to interpret a cautious, tentative, and thoughtful demeanor as an indicator of incompetence and/or dishonesty, rather than the mastery and scrupulous care that can be its actual source. And they tend to interpret a glib, relaxed, and easy demeanor as an indicator of mastery and honesty, rather than the ignorance and overconfidence that can be its actual source. And here's the really bad news: some speakers might cynically exploit this paradox. They affect a glib, relaxed, and easy demeanor as a way to fool us. Don't be fooled.  Top    Next Issue

Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info

For more about the Dunning-Kruger Effect, see "The Paradox of Confidence," Point Lookout for January 7, 2009; "How to Reject Expert Opinion: II," Point Lookout for January 4, 2012; "Devious Political Tactics: More from the Field Manual," Point Lookout for August 29, 2012; "Overconfidence at Work," Point Lookout for April 15, 2015; "Wishful Thinking and Perception: II," Point Lookout for November 4, 2015; "Wishful Significance: II," Point Lookout for December 23, 2015; "Cognitive Biases and Influence: I," Point Lookout for July 6, 2016; and "Risk Acceptance: One Path," Point Lookout for March 3, 2021.

Footnotes

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Effective Communication at Work:

Questioning Questions

In meetings and other workplace discussions, questioning is a common form of conversational contribution. Questions can be expensive, disruptive, and counterproductive. For most exchanges, there is a better way.

Nasty Questions: II

In meetings, telemeetings, and email we sometimes ask questions that aren't intended to elicit information. Rather, they're indirect attacks intended to advance the questioner's political agenda. Here's part two of a catalog of some favorite tactics.

Embolalia and Stuff Like That: I

When we address others, we sometimes use filler — so-called automatic speech or embolalia — without thinking. Examples are "uh," "um," and "er," but there are more complex forms, too. Embolalia are usually harmless, if mildly annoying to some. But sometimes they can be damaging.

Chronic Peer Interrupters: II

People use a variety of tactics when they're interrupted while making contributions in meetings. Some tactics work well, while others carry risks of their own. Here's Part II of a little survey of those tactics.

Mastering Messaging for Pandemics: I

When a pandemic rages, face-to-face meetings are largely curtailed. Clarity in text messaging and email communication becomes more important than usual. Citing dates and times unambiguously requires a more rigorous approach than many are accustomed to.

See also Effective Communication at Work and Effective Communication at Work for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming January 22: Storming: Obstacle or Pathway?

The Storming stage of Tuckman's model of small group development is widely misunderstood. Fighting the storms, denying they exist, or bypassing them doesn't work. Letting them blow themselves out in a somewhat-controlled manner is the path to Norming and Performing. Available here and by RSS on January 22.

And on January 29: A Framework for Safe Storming

The Storming stage of Tuckman's development sequence for small groups is when the group explores its frustrations and degrees of disagreement about both structure and task. Only by understanding these misalignments is reaching alignment possible. Here is a framework for this exploration. Available here and by RSS on January 29.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenjTnUayrCbSnnEcYfner@ChacdcYpBKAaMJgMalFXoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info