This is going to be two posts because I have work to do. This post will be concerning everything except powertalk, which is the most nuanced bit by far. I think that will also help spread the discussion a bit. If you have questions about what I've typed, please ask, as I'm just hand-jamming this.

Of the four, the only concept that's really interesting to me is the idea of powertalk (though gametalk is fairly intriguing as well). I'll summarize the other three, but they are a bit more contrived and a bit less relevant to everyday life.

As an introduction, it's important to note that the author was talking about intra-office politics, and not necessarily communications between men and women. Powertalk happens to kind of apply to male/female interactions, but not, in my opinion, enough that it's super important for y'all to understand.

That said, let us begin.

Straight Talk

The "unstated" category, this is exactly what it sounds like: Saying X and meaning X. According to the author, this normally occurs between upper management and the junior workers. The power dynamic is already established, and there's no need for games. This last sentence provides an important foil for the rest of the categories, because this is the only type of talk that doesn't involve games (even babytalk is the recognition that the game needs to be abandoned temporarily).

Posture Talk

The easiest way to explain Posturetalk is "powertalk gone wrong." Posturetalk is the language of the "Clueless," the people who don't even realize that games are being played. I can't think of a better example, so I'm going to use the author's:

The shareholders of the Dunder-Mifflin company are furious about the corrupt executives giving themselves bonuses and running the company into the ground. The execs, knowing this, bring in Michael, the Clueless, incompetent middle manager. The execs tell Michael that, as a reward for doing his job well, he will present at a shareholder meeting.

The actual intent, of course, is to make the leadership appear completely incompetent. Incompetence is not illegal, so the shareholders will back down and the executives will have their asses covered.

Clueless Michael doesn't realize that games are being played, so when the execs present him, he grabs the mic and announces that they have a plan to turn the company around. Of course, there is no plan. He does not understand the underlying dynamics of powertalk. He misunderstood the intentions of the executives for him, and mistakenly presumed that there was a plan beyond "CYA."

Baby Talk

If posturetalk is the language of the Clueless, Babytalk is the language to the Clueless. Essentially, an experienced game-player will switch to babytalk to ease a Clueless person through a conversation. The example the author provides is a salary negotiation.

Let's say a 12% raise is what a Company is willing to pay. The Company will offer 10%, the (non-Clueless) Employee requests 15%, they settle on 12%.

For a Clueless person, a 10% offer will be accepted as the best the company can do. If, somehow, they knew that the company was willing to pay 12%, they would be quite offended at the offer of 10%, because they don't even realize a game is being played.

Babytalk is when a sympathetic (or self-interested) person says to the Clueless person "Dude, you need to ask for 15%, and then they can give you 12%."

Game Talk

Game talk is the language of the people the author terms "losers" but I will call "subordinates," because his terminology is confusing as fuck, and it annoys me that he repurposes words so carelessly.

Game talk, essentially, is the language that subordinates use to gain acceptance in their social group and maintain the murkiness of position in the social group while assuaging egos.

Let's break that down.

In the author's conception, the users of powertalk don't care about social status, but rather about information and the power that information brings. The subordinates, however, do care about social status, and jockey for position. However, in any social group, the "rankings" of the members is, by necessity, murky. With the exception of the "top dog" and the "whipping boy" (ranked first and last, respectively) everybody else has an uncertain ranking.

The uncertainty of the rankings must be maintained for the social group to function. But egos also must be satisfied. Therefore, everybody needs to be "above average" at something -- something which nobody else in the group is competing for. If there's one musician in the group, they get to be the best guitarist, but nobody else was on the playing field, so the rankings of social status are still murky.

Game talk is, according to the author, the unspoken mutual agreement to rank each other according to these skills which nobody else was competing for anyway. Mutually supported self-delusion, if you will.

Additionally, game talk is how subordinates identify belonging to a group. The best example of this is when the #1 member (recall that the alpha position is defined) makes a joke, and everybody else starts to riff off of his joke. Talking shit about the omega position is another way that members of a group can say "look at me, I am part of this club -- and I'm not the lowest-ranking member."

On Powertalk
Let me preface this by saying that I'm going to give you my thoughts on powertalk.

I have read Mr. Rao's series on powertalk several times, and have an above-average grasp on his material. I, in fact, used his thoughts as the basis for what I'm about to write, but I don't think that his original conception was overly useful for TRP. As I mentioned in the other post, Mr. Rao wrote that users of powertalk weren't concerned with social standing, only with the balance and transfer of power.

I disagree, of course, and think that in general powertalk is much broader than simply being concerned with the transfer of power.

Powertalk Defined
At the core, powertalk is deliberate, weaponized conversation. Powertalking is the intentional use of word choice, phrasing, and ambiguity to benefit the speaker. There are many ways that powertalk can be utilized:

• Maintaining ambiguity and plausible deniability
• Getting information from somebody
• Concealing your own intentions / protecting your own information
• Communicating with other powertalkers

...and many more examples. Basically any deliberate use of conversation to gain an advantage falls under my definition of powertalk.

Who uses powertalk?
In the author's conception, powertalk is the language of what he terms "Sociopaths." Since the author's series is framed around "The Office," he defines Sociopaths as

...Darwinian/Protestant Ethic will-to-power types who drive an organization to function despite itself.

Essentially, Sociopaths (by his definition) are the C-level executives, the people who really make a company run. The people who skirt the rules and make the important decisions.

Since we aren't concerned with the machinations of a corporation here at TRP, I have another term I'm going to substitute: the Informed.

For our purposes, someone Informed is someone who understands that a game is being played, someone who recognizes that people (especially women) don't always (or often) say what they mean, but rather what it is advantageous to say.

Becoming Informed is an important social consequence of internalizing TRP. We talk about "pay attention to what girls do, not what they say" and agree that girls tend to reach "truth by consensus" rather than "truth by proof of evidence."

Women tend to have a highly-developed innate feel for powertalk and gametalk, and seem to be born Informed, whereas men tend to prefer straighttalk and gametalk, and need to consciously become Informed.

The sexes tend to clash when an Informed woman is powertalking, and a Clueless man is straighttalking. The Informed woman will consider the Clueless male completely lost, and sigh about how he "just doesn't get it." The Clueless male, for his part, will be hopelessly confused; interpreting her powertalk incorrectly, he takes her words at face value and gets burned.

For a better understanding of how powertalk actually works, let's look at how powertalk is applied in the real world.

Powertalking with Women
I mentioned earlier that women tend to be unconsciously Informed. It's a rare woman who intentionally powertalks; instead, powertalk seems to be their natural method of communication. I believe this is because women tend to judge each other on social standing, and powertalk serves as a shield from negative social repercussions.

(This is anecdotal, but I've noticed that "loner"-type women tend to use quite a bit of straight talk, while sorority presidents and the like rarely say a single word that isn't powertalk.)

Recall that powertalking is the intentional use of conversation to benefit or prevent harm to the speaker. Since social standing is everything for women, they generally use powertalk defensively, in order to prevent harm to their social standing.

Defensive use of powertalk is characterized by ambiguity and plausible deniability, which lead to things like "code" phrases. I can't think of a better example of plausible deniability than one we've already seen in this thread, so I'm going to steal it:

The post about the OKCupid girl finding a guy too nice.

The problem was not that the guy was too nice, the problem was that the guy is boring. Too nice is code for boring.

So now the question is: why not say it as it is? Because by directly criticizing the guy she can get in trouble if he finds out. Instead she uses a compliment while blaming herself for the problem. There is no problem with the guy, he is nice, she has the problem. In reality she is saying he is boring to anyone who can read the real message but without risk.

The desire for defensive ambiguity is why women will rarely commit to an opinion without checking what her social group thinks about that opinion. If she were to commit to the opinion, it takes away all ambiguity from her position. If it turned out that the social group held the opposite opinion, it would reflect very negatively on her. Instead, she'll agree noncommittally and/or seek to change the subject.

In summary, women powertalk defensively. They maintain plausible deniability and ambiguity in order to protect their social standing. The takeaway is to not be so stupid as to take their words at face value.

Powertalking in the Workplace
Powertalking in the workplace is much more interesting. This is where we really start to see the "dance" of two powertalkers attempting to maneuver for position.

Of particular interest is the fact that a junior member of the workplace can use powertalk to communicate to a senior member that they are, in fact, worthy of special consideration. Very few people have the savvy to effectively powertalk, and those who do are generally found in the higher ranks of management.

Powertalk in the workplace is typified by

1. Protecting your own information and attempting to gain information from others.
2. Communicating information "in code" to other powertalkers.
3. Communicating to other powertalkers that you know how to play the game.

Examine carefully Mr. Rao's analysis:

At a Dunder-Mifflin management party, shortly after Michael and Jan disclose their affair to David Wallace, per HR requirements, Wallace casually invites Jim to blow off the party for a while and shoot hoops in the backyard. Once outside, Wallace nonchalantly asks, “So what’s up with Jan and Michael?” He is clearly fishing for information, having observed the bizarre couple dynamics at the party.

Jim replies, “I wouldn’t know…(pregnant pause)…where to begin.” (slight laugh)

David Wallace laughs in return. This is as eloquent as such a short fragment of Powertalk can get. Here are just some of the messages being communicated by the six words and the meaningful pause and laugh.

Message 1: It is a complex situation (literal).
Message 2: I understand you think something bizarre is going on. I am confirming your suspicion. It is a bizarre mess, and you should be concerned.
Message 3: This is the first significant conversation between us, and I am signaling to you that I am fluent in Powertalk.
Message 4: I know how to communicate useful information while maintaining plausible deniability.
Message 5: I am not so gratified at this sign of attention from you that I am going to say foolish things that could backfire on me.
Message 6: I am aware of my situational leverage and the fact that you need me. I am not so overawed that I am giving it all up for free.
Message 7: I am being non-committal enough that you can pull back or steer this conversation to safer matters if you like. I know how to give others wiggle room, safe outs and exits.
Message 8: You still have to earn my trust. But let’s keep talking. What do you have that I could use?

How do I powertalk?
The first key to effectively powertalking is understanding your purpose. If you don't have a reason to powertalk, you're just going to be seen as confusing. Generally speaking, straighttalk is valued in men, except when powertalk is necessary.

Second, deliberately choose what tactics to use and when, based on your goals and who you're speaking with.

• Does plausible deniability benefit you, or would it make you seem afraid to commit?

• Is ambiguity a good idea, or will you seem like you don't know what you're talking about?

• Do you want to leave the other person "wiggle room," or are you trying to lock them into a hard statement?

• Do you need to reveal some information of your own in a quid pro quo, or can you get the information that they are holding without letting the other party have any of yours?

What you won't be able to do is start building layers of nuance into every single statement. Instead, simply seek to consider the ramifications of what you're saying, and whether you get any benefit from the words coming out of your mouth.

Yesterday there was a perfect example of powertalk here at trp. The post about the OKCupid girl finding a guy too nice.

The problem was not that the guy was too nice, the problem was that the guy is boring. Too nice is code for boring.

So now the question is: why not say it as it is? Because by directly criticizing the guy she can get in trouble if he finds out. Instead she uses a compliment while blaming herself for the problem. There is no problem with the guy, he is nice, she has the problem. In reality she is saying he is boring to anyone who can read the real messing but without risk.

Thank you for asking this. I've been fuzzy about these concepts as well.

I don't blame you. The way the author talk is really confusing.

Would love if someone can shed some light on this.