Steven Pinker and I. A. Richards

There is much that can be added to Pinker's overall idea of how humans interact with one another. throughou his video " The Stuff of Thought," Pinker describes human language and the methods in which we choose to communicate in three basic forms. Those three of which are: dominance, communality and reciprocity. The dominant relationships consists of a 'you do as I say' mentality often shared between bosses and their employees, teachers and students, or paretns and their children. Communality relationships reflect the ways in which friends 0r significant others interact with one another. It is a common ground where little is expected. Reciprocity is as Pinker stated to be, "a tit for tat exchange of services or goods." Each of these relationships have their own rules and methods of communicating which Pinker suggest keeps these three major relationships from intertwining. I.A. Richard's brings forth an idea in his 'Proposal for a New Rhetoric' by establishing that certain forms of language must be recognized as distinguishable forms of communication. " rhetoric's task is to distinguish the different sorts of ends, aims, for which we use language, to teach how to pursue them separetly and how to reconcile their diverse claims." - I.A. Richards.

Pinker admits that through these different modes of communication, certain messages and meanings can get lost within the innuendos and 'veiled' messages we give off when we communicate or interact wtih others. Pinker suggest the way for which the meannings and motives behind what we say or do can not get misinterpreted is through an establishment of "mutual knowledge". When mutual knowledge is created, then understanding is accomplished-- which can be either positive or negative. Richards believes that one of the means to which communicators can work towoards perventing "misunderstanding" when communicating are through use of metaphors. Pinke would associate this with indirect communication--which could have its perks. For instance, Pinker uses the example of man's attempt to initiate sex with a woman by asking her if she would like to come up and see his paintings (both knowing hidden innuendo is sex itself). By not being direct, there is a chance of causing a misunderstanding; however, it elivates some of the awkward tension that would have been blantantly apparent had he palinly asked to have sex with her. The down side to using methaphors or indirect language instead of establishing a mutual knowledge is the lack of a somewhat intimate understanding that can be shared. For example, Pinker uses people and the government to touch on this point. People are more inclined to demand change within a 'mob' or knowing there is an infinite number of people who agree (mutual knowledge) rather than alone, in fear that they may be the only one.

Thus being said, there really is no 'accurate' way to communicate with others. It all depends on to whom you are speaking with, the context of the subjet matter you are speaking of and what the meaning/ messge is behind what you are saying.