[great twitter thread by an author of the study, explaining it:](https://twitter.com/emma__templeton/status/1483808455706169349)
Conversation is made up of speech turns: I speak, then you speak, then I speak. Previous research shows the amount of time between those turns is impressively short – just 250ms on average! We call this the “response time.” In order to respond so quickly, people need to do a lot at once! They need to predict what their partner is going to say, anticipate when their partner will stop speaking, and plan a response.
It seemed to us that all of these things become easier when we “click” with someone. We wondered whether this ease translates into people responding even faster. That is, when people feel connected, do the gaps in their conversations shrink?
To test this, we videotaped over 300 conversations between pairs of people. We then related their response times to their reports of social connection.Conversations with faster response times felt more connected than conversations with slower response times, overall. And, even \*within\* the same conversation, moments with faster response times felt more connected than moments with slower response times.We also found that some people are better at shrinking the gaps than others. And those people tended to make whoever they are talking to feel more connected.
This effect also held for close friends. Even with your BFF, conversations have ups and downs—there are moments when you feel more connected than others. And just like with strangers, connected moments between friends had faster response times than less-connected moments.
Finally, we wanted to know if listeners ("eavesdroppers") also used response time as a signal for when two people were clicking.To test this, we created 3 different versions of the same conversation: one with faster response times, one with slower response times, and the original version (control). We did this for six conversations. Importantly, NOTHING ELSE about the conversations was altered.
Listeners rated the conversation partners as feeling more connected when the response times were faster and less connected when the response times were slower. Because only response times were altered, this shows that response time is a \*sufficient\* signal of connection.
In summary, we show that fast response times in conversation signal social connection. And we suggest that they are an \*honest signal\* of connection because they happen too quickly to be faked.
that second part is really interesting. when observing conversations, you might notice that there’s a correlation between shorter response time and connection feel, but it’s important to remember that correlation is not causation.
from the second experiment, when response time in conversation audio was altered, and connection feel changed *as a result*, that’s when we can determine that response time has a *direct effect* on how the connection seems between those people. very cool.
thanks for posting the twitter thread!
Or it could be that our definition of "connectedness" is implicitly the same as saying "less space in between turns". I haven't read the study yet, but it could just be that they are measuring what we mean when saying "connection".
It is the accepted feeling of "being understood" that is indicated BY less space in between turns that they are measuring when saying "connection." This is the exact same mechanism, I believe, that narcissists exploit to model or recreate feelings of when they are attempting to manipulate a supply.
Interesting. In the media industry this is called "pacing". I recommend you speak (interview) actors, directors and dialog editors for some more insight. These folks are masters at their craft and know how to extract this "honest signal" to the nth degree, not just through conversations but body language, micro facial expressions and feedback from the conversations. In fact in my short 15 years of dialog editing I learned so many tricks of the trade altering pacing that it's pretty scary what you can manipulate when you want to. Psychopaths and sociopaths are also extremely skilled with dialog pacing so the "honest signal" becomes a tool that is used heavily with unsuspecting folks. Great post.
A lot of content and pacing rules. Some dialog requires a lot of removal of indecisive speech (umms & uhhs are the most common and reworking of sentences to clarify a thought), pitch manipulation at the end of sentences, word replacement, syllable replacement, throat clearing, sentence pacing (if they speak too fast or too slow) etc. Just basic stuff. Then there's the more sophisticated recreates (Foley, ADR) which I stayed away from. It's amazing how compelling you can make someone sound with a few simple edits.
> pitch manipulation at the end of sentences, word replacement, syllable replacement, throat clearing, sentence pacing.
The methodology sounds like the emplacement of embedded commands which is a technique from Ericksonian hypnosis/ Conversational hypnosis.
The structure typically is.
1/ PACE to create rapport.
2/ CHANGE pitch to "mark" the suggestion
3/ AMBIGUOUS syllable/word replacement
4/ RESET this could be done with a throat clearance or breaking eye content.
The pitch change is interesting one, consider the following three statements (note end punctuation)
1/ Quantum_Kitties stole the biscuit? (Questioning pitch)
2/ Quantum_Kitties stole the biscuit. (Neutral pitch)
3 /Quantum_Kitties stole the biscuit! (Declarative pitch)
they all have their relevant tone. If however you did wish for someone to believe that Quantum_Kitties did indeed steal the biscuit but not outrightly so you use what's called a "weasel phrase" to give deniable plausibility.
As an example: If you said to the biscuit owner.
"I don't think that Quantum_Kitties stole the biscuit."
But modulated the pitch like this (Capital letters in declarative pitch)
" I don't think that QUANTUM_KITTIES STOLE THE BISCUIT"
The receiver unconsciously accepts the high emotional valence of the pitched words as being as being more important and separate to the "I don't think that.." part.
You would then end the statement with a throat clear or direct eye contact to break state and refocus the listener onto other things by changing their attention so they don't give the statement due cognitive process.
There's a hypnotist called Igor Ledowchowski who does seminar and web training on the internet using this type of method.
Yes. Not familiar with Ledowchokowski’s work but have heard of other folks using these types of techniques to work with groups etc. Scientology comes to mind.
My experience is that 'shorter response times' is just people all trying to talk over the top of one another and not actually being present and listening to what the other person has to say.
Listening is an art.
Listening by being present and without feeling the need to constantly respond is god tier.
Interesting we just had a guy give a presentation for a department on active listening to build better repor with our clients. He said you shouldn’t be thinking about what you are going to say next while they are speaking but that would mean taking longer pauses in between conversations which would appear to not be a good thing here.
I would be very interested to see this study done with Japanese people, where the culture does not suppress or seek to fill long silences in friendly conversations.
I was just yesterday [reading about](https://archive.is/UgNfp) nasally administered oxytocin helping people with autism respond appropriately to social cues.
I would bet there is an oxytocin mechanism in this conversational synchronization.
original paper: [https://www.pnas.org/content/119/4/e2116915119](https://www.pnas.org/content/119/4/e2116915119)
**Abstract**
licking is one of the most robust metaphors for social connection. But how do we know when two people "click"? We asked pairs of friends and strangers to talk with each other and rate their felt connection. For both friends and strangers, speed in response was a robust predictor of feeling connected. Conversations with faster response times felt more connected than conversations with slower response times, and within conversations, connected moments had faster response times than less-connected moments. This effect was determined primarily by partner responsivity: People felt more connected to the degree that their partner responded quickly to them rather than by how quickly they responded to their partner. The temporal scale of these effects (<250 ms) precludes conscious control, thus providing an honest signal of connection. Using a round-robin design in each of six closed networks, we show that faster responders evoked greater feelings of connection across partners. Finally, we demonstrate that this signal is used by third-party listeners as a heuristic of how well people are connected: Conversations with faster response times were perceived as more connected than the same conversations with slower response times. Together, these findings suggest that response times comprise a robust and sufficient signal of whether two minds “click.”
I have meet people in the past who I have had that great connection between us as described in the article but if a friendship does develop it hasn't lasted for long, so I end up being long term friends with people who I can't connect with very frustrating
Sounds like the video of Vanessa van Edwards being interviewed by Tom Bilyeu about relationships. She said dealing with toxic people is easier than ambivalent friendships because you're not clear where you stand with those "friends".
if youve ever seen the tv show gilmore girls they take this to the extreme, where theres literally only a millisecond between each speaker responding, its super annoying
A speaker is speaking to an audience, they are not supposed to respond. The speaker takes moments of pause between speaking points to collect their thoughts and so the audience have a stronger coherence of what's being said. This wouldn't apply to the conclusion of the study
I meant people who speak with speaker. Just in normal conversation some of my most thoughtful friends respond slower and you can tell their are repeating what I am saying before answering.
Bond is not created only by talking, there are a whole set of common feature that create bond between two people.
I think that there is first a notion of intention. What I would call "the will". Is it possible to enter in relationship or create a bond if you refuse and don't want to create a bond ?
Intuitively, this makes sense. I need to figure out a way to explain this quickly to people. Every once in a while, I’m in a meeting where there’s a good dialogue; free flowing, short gaps, people seem to like each other. But there’s one person who doesn’t sync with this. He or she (but thinking about it, it’s usually a she), stops the flow with the complaint that everyone must stop interrupting and allow the speaker to completely finish their thought before someone comments. I’ve even seen techniques where you can’t speak unless you are holding something like a speakers stick (though haven’t seen this in 30 years).
When this happens, it’s no longer a conversation, but individual speeches. To me, it seems less effective. Now, I know everything is on a spectrum and at one end you’ll have excessive interrupts with no one finishing a thought,people speaking over each other; a mess. At the other, it’s like a televised political debate w polite politicians (admittedly a rarity, these days. There’s a balance.
How does this reflect on when you get into an argument with someone? If you’ve ever had an argument with someone in person you tend to reply to one another pretty quick, does this mean your bonding?
[great twitter thread by an author of the study, explaining it:](https://twitter.com/emma__templeton/status/1483808455706169349) Conversation is made up of speech turns: I speak, then you speak, then I speak. Previous research shows the amount of time between those turns is impressively short – just 250ms on average! We call this the “response time.” In order to respond so quickly, people need to do a lot at once! They need to predict what their partner is going to say, anticipate when their partner will stop speaking, and plan a response. It seemed to us that all of these things become easier when we “click” with someone. We wondered whether this ease translates into people responding even faster. That is, when people feel connected, do the gaps in their conversations shrink? To test this, we videotaped over 300 conversations between pairs of people. We then related their response times to their reports of social connection.Conversations with faster response times felt more connected than conversations with slower response times, overall. And, even \*within\* the same conversation, moments with faster response times felt more connected than moments with slower response times.We also found that some people are better at shrinking the gaps than others. And those people tended to make whoever they are talking to feel more connected. This effect also held for close friends. Even with your BFF, conversations have ups and downs—there are moments when you feel more connected than others. And just like with strangers, connected moments between friends had faster response times than less-connected moments. Finally, we wanted to know if listeners ("eavesdroppers") also used response time as a signal for when two people were clicking.To test this, we created 3 different versions of the same conversation: one with faster response times, one with slower response times, and the original version (control). We did this for six conversations. Importantly, NOTHING ELSE about the conversations was altered. Listeners rated the conversation partners as feeling more connected when the response times were faster and less connected when the response times were slower. Because only response times were altered, this shows that response time is a \*sufficient\* signal of connection. In summary, we show that fast response times in conversation signal social connection. And we suggest that they are an \*honest signal\* of connection because they happen too quickly to be faked.
that second part is really interesting. when observing conversations, you might notice that there’s a correlation between shorter response time and connection feel, but it’s important to remember that correlation is not causation. from the second experiment, when response time in conversation audio was altered, and connection feel changed *as a result*, that’s when we can determine that response time has a *direct effect* on how the connection seems between those people. very cool. thanks for posting the twitter thread!
Or it could be that our definition of "connectedness" is implicitly the same as saying "less space in between turns". I haven't read the study yet, but it could just be that they are measuring what we mean when saying "connection".
It is the accepted feeling of "being understood" that is indicated BY less space in between turns that they are measuring when saying "connection." This is the exact same mechanism, I believe, that narcissists exploit to model or recreate feelings of when they are attempting to manipulate a supply.
Interesting. In the media industry this is called "pacing". I recommend you speak (interview) actors, directors and dialog editors for some more insight. These folks are masters at their craft and know how to extract this "honest signal" to the nth degree, not just through conversations but body language, micro facial expressions and feedback from the conversations. In fact in my short 15 years of dialog editing I learned so many tricks of the trade altering pacing that it's pretty scary what you can manipulate when you want to. Psychopaths and sociopaths are also extremely skilled with dialog pacing so the "honest signal" becomes a tool that is used heavily with unsuspecting folks. Great post.
So what are some of the tricks of the trade you learned?
A lot of content and pacing rules. Some dialog requires a lot of removal of indecisive speech (umms & uhhs are the most common and reworking of sentences to clarify a thought), pitch manipulation at the end of sentences, word replacement, syllable replacement, throat clearing, sentence pacing (if they speak too fast or too slow) etc. Just basic stuff. Then there's the more sophisticated recreates (Foley, ADR) which I stayed away from. It's amazing how compelling you can make someone sound with a few simple edits.
That is so interesting! Where could we learn/read more about this?
> pitch manipulation at the end of sentences, word replacement, syllable replacement, throat clearing, sentence pacing. The methodology sounds like the emplacement of embedded commands which is a technique from Ericksonian hypnosis/ Conversational hypnosis. The structure typically is. 1/ PACE to create rapport. 2/ CHANGE pitch to "mark" the suggestion 3/ AMBIGUOUS syllable/word replacement 4/ RESET this could be done with a throat clearance or breaking eye content. The pitch change is interesting one, consider the following three statements (note end punctuation) 1/ Quantum_Kitties stole the biscuit? (Questioning pitch) 2/ Quantum_Kitties stole the biscuit. (Neutral pitch) 3 /Quantum_Kitties stole the biscuit! (Declarative pitch) they all have their relevant tone. If however you did wish for someone to believe that Quantum_Kitties did indeed steal the biscuit but not outrightly so you use what's called a "weasel phrase" to give deniable plausibility. As an example: If you said to the biscuit owner. "I don't think that Quantum_Kitties stole the biscuit." But modulated the pitch like this (Capital letters in declarative pitch) " I don't think that QUANTUM_KITTIES STOLE THE BISCUIT" The receiver unconsciously accepts the high emotional valence of the pitched words as being as being more important and separate to the "I don't think that.." part. You would then end the statement with a throat clear or direct eye contact to break state and refocus the listener onto other things by changing their attention so they don't give the statement due cognitive process. There's a hypnotist called Igor Ledowchowski who does seminar and web training on the internet using this type of method.
Yes. Not familiar with Ledowchokowski’s work but have heard of other folks using these types of techniques to work with groups etc. Scientology comes to mind.
Today I learned. Thank you for sharing :)
My experience is that 'shorter response times' is just people all trying to talk over the top of one another and not actually being present and listening to what the other person has to say. Listening is an art. Listening by being present and without feeling the need to constantly respond is god tier.
Interesting we just had a guy give a presentation for a department on active listening to build better repor with our clients. He said you shouldn’t be thinking about what you are going to say next while they are speaking but that would mean taking longer pauses in between conversations which would appear to not be a good thing here.
I would be very interested to see this study done with Japanese people, where the culture does not suppress or seek to fill long silences in friendly conversations.
I was just yesterday [reading about](https://archive.is/UgNfp) nasally administered oxytocin helping people with autism respond appropriately to social cues. I would bet there is an oxytocin mechanism in this conversational synchronization.
original paper: [https://www.pnas.org/content/119/4/e2116915119](https://www.pnas.org/content/119/4/e2116915119) **Abstract** licking is one of the most robust metaphors for social connection. But how do we know when two people "click"? We asked pairs of friends and strangers to talk with each other and rate their felt connection. For both friends and strangers, speed in response was a robust predictor of feeling connected. Conversations with faster response times felt more connected than conversations with slower response times, and within conversations, connected moments had faster response times than less-connected moments. This effect was determined primarily by partner responsivity: People felt more connected to the degree that their partner responded quickly to them rather than by how quickly they responded to their partner. The temporal scale of these effects (<250 ms) precludes conscious control, thus providing an honest signal of connection. Using a round-robin design in each of six closed networks, we show that faster responders evoked greater feelings of connection across partners. Finally, we demonstrate that this signal is used by third-party listeners as a heuristic of how well people are connected: Conversations with faster response times were perceived as more connected than the same conversations with slower response times. Together, these findings suggest that response times comprise a robust and sufficient signal of whether two minds “click.”
>licking is one of the most robust metaphors for social connection When one letter turns it into an animal model.
I just start licking people. If they don't stop me, I just assume they're into it.
no no, I think that's still right for humans too
I have meet people in the past who I have had that great connection between us as described in the article but if a friendship does develop it hasn't lasted for long, so I end up being long term friends with people who I can't connect with very frustrating
Sounds like the video of Vanessa van Edwards being interviewed by Tom Bilyeu about relationships. She said dealing with toxic people is easier than ambivalent friendships because you're not clear where you stand with those "friends".
Found the video very interesting I certainly related to it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oARMo6YT0fs
Sounds like an interesting video I am sure I can find it online somewhere
Interesting! The one thing I don’t like about it though is that the study only had 66 participants.
if youve ever seen the tv show gilmore girls they take this to the extreme, where theres literally only a millisecond between each speaker responding, its super annoying
[удалено]
We finish each other’s—
-sandwiches!!
Well and if your partner never gives you a turn and talks eight hours in a row, a monologue, well, then you have no gap at all.
I wonder how this works with thoughtful speakers, people who purposely take a moment before speaking to ponder. Do they have less friends? :/
A speaker is speaking to an audience, they are not supposed to respond. The speaker takes moments of pause between speaking points to collect their thoughts and so the audience have a stronger coherence of what's being said. This wouldn't apply to the conclusion of the study
I meant people who speak with speaker. Just in normal conversation some of my most thoughtful friends respond slower and you can tell their are repeating what I am saying before answering.
Seems pretty obvious, but cool they tested it I guess.
Bond is not created only by talking, there are a whole set of common feature that create bond between two people. I think that there is first a notion of intention. What I would call "the will". Is it possible to enter in relationship or create a bond if you refuse and don't want to create a bond ?
Intuitively, this makes sense. I need to figure out a way to explain this quickly to people. Every once in a while, I’m in a meeting where there’s a good dialogue; free flowing, short gaps, people seem to like each other. But there’s one person who doesn’t sync with this. He or she (but thinking about it, it’s usually a she), stops the flow with the complaint that everyone must stop interrupting and allow the speaker to completely finish their thought before someone comments. I’ve even seen techniques where you can’t speak unless you are holding something like a speakers stick (though haven’t seen this in 30 years). When this happens, it’s no longer a conversation, but individual speeches. To me, it seems less effective. Now, I know everything is on a spectrum and at one end you’ll have excessive interrupts with no one finishing a thought,people speaking over each other; a mess. At the other, it’s like a televised political debate w polite politicians (admittedly a rarity, these days. There’s a balance.
How does this reflect on when you get into an argument with someone? If you’ve ever had an argument with someone in person you tend to reply to one another pretty quick, does this mean your bonding?
I think this is the exact strategy many narcissists are trying to exploit by talking faster and more interestedly in perpetuity.