Grammar is a Signal

WSJ:  There's an inverse correlation between power and proper grammar

That's pretty much the long and the short of the whole article (archive).  But I would add that there is a correlation between proper grammar and respect.  So when did power come to mean a lack of respect?

I am a terrible self-editor, but I do make every effort to not make, and certainly not send, grammatical or spelling errors.  But according to The Wall Street Journal, in 2026, this makes me some kind of toady.

Have we become so blasé about written communications that we fail to comprehend that there is an etiquettical dimension to the process?  Or do we just no longer care?

I mean even if I am communicating with a subordinate, I will make every effort to write properly.  I might even make more of an effort, because I would not want them to think I am illiterate, right?  That would be shameful.  Or at least embarrassing.

Well...no.

The authors of this piece seem to be saying that we demonstrate our power by using bad grammar.  Or at the very least, power gives us permission to dispense with proper grammar and editing.  Personally, I think they have been reading way too much Foucault.

But this much is clearly true.  People today like to assume that whomever they are communicating with will not assume that they are illiterate.  The correspondent will simply assume that they are busy or blame the technology or whatever.  Or, they assume that the correspondent will simply believe that they just cannot be bothered.  So there is no embarrassment much less shame.

Is that the message that we want to send?  And if it is, what does that say about us?  Here's a question:  What would your grandmother have thought about your grandfather if his love letters were full of grammatical errors and spelling mistakes?  Maybe you would not be here.

No, consistently bad grammar and spelling is a signal.  He just cannot be bothered.  That's the signal.

Here's my question:  What else is he not bothered about?

If you believe that bad grammar signals something else; maybe it does.  It could represent any number of signals.  But all of them are bad.

And if etiquettical is not a word, I will be ashamed.

𓐵

Email in 2025?

Is email hate justified?

Everyone seems to hate email for different reasons.  It may be 2025, but it seems like email hate has always been with us.

Here is a 2017 interview with perhaps the most famous email hater, Paul Jones.

And I really do not have any qualms with his arguments, then or now.  But my question is and has always been:  But what is better?

Is there a way to communicate universally without having to set up a Facebook page, or some type of group chat, or coordinate the various communications apps that various people and organizations use?

The answer for the last thirty years, and still today, is yes.  Email.  Only email.

The closest thing to the ease of email is SMS text messaging.  And I don't know about you, but if it is anything even slightly complex, text messaging is just more trouble than it is worth.

Even email does not lend itself to extremely complex issues.  I tell people, if it is that complex, expect a phone call.  Yes, you read that correctly.  And of course, the most complex issues still, in 2025, require...wait for it...a meeting.

My younger clients often pushed back on this, especially the phone calls.  But I would say to them:  I am not going to discuss something as complicated and nuanced as a real estate transaction via text message.  I mean the contract alone is twenty pages long.  Take my calls, or hire someone else.  And always, by the end of it, they had seen the light.

So let's take these universal communication methods in order, for dealing with complexity, from most complex to least complex.

1. Meeting
2. Phone call (here, perhaps we can add videoconferencing)
3. Email
4. SMS text

Yes, I am leaving out postal letters; also a perfectly acceptable universal communication method.  But I am assuming some element of modern urgency.  If that does not exist, letter-writing should be added to the above.  And while we are on truly outdated methods, when I started my career, one wrote memoranda.  Yes, on paper.  Does anyone still do that?  I always loved a good memo.  Maybe that explains my extended attachment to email.

But why are other apps not included?  Because they are not universal and perhaps never will be.  The closest app that might work is Signal, and that is only because most security-minded people already use it.  But if your company uses Slack, and your customer does not, what are you going to do?  Even the videoconferencing, which I have included, requires coordination on what system we will be using and what time we will be using it.  And, the associated learning curb.

In fact, there is a learning curb for all apps.  And I suppose there is a learning curb for the above four, but most of us absorb these pretty early on.

So it is the universality of email that is so valuable.  And the email haters don't seem to grasp this.

There is a second feature of email that I also believe to be valuable.  An email does not have to conform to any particular app's structure and parameters.  An email is like starting with a blank sheet of paper.

When we have an app that I can use to reach anyone with any message, we can then add a number five.  It may be 2025, but I still do not see that alternative.

Are there things we can do to make email more palatable and efficient?  Let's break it down.

• To alleviate the spam problem, use white & black lists.  As a still current email user, I will say that this works like a charm.  But it does require an initial time investment to set it up.  The upside is that I get maybe one spam email in my inbox per week.
• Treat email like a fast letter, rather than a slow phone call.  Send emails at any time, but only check your emails and/or respond when it suits you.  I think if we applied this rule to all forms of communication, we'd all be quite a bit happier.
• Only communicate with people who know how to write.  My question would be:  Do you really want to do business with someone who does not know how to write?  They will have other issues as well.
• Be prepared to mix and match communication methods.  For instance:  Yep got your text, but I'll have to respond in an email/phone call, etc.  Sure there is utility in keeping a chain of communication together.  But I would say efficiency is probably more important.  It is easy to ask a question via text; the answer may require a two-page response, not to mention any follow-up questions.  Text-only fans ignore this issue.
• In fact, it seems to me that the people most unhappy with email view it like a phone call, with lots of back and forth.  And it can be that.  But if we are trying to be efficient, would not an actual phone call be better?
• I have absolutely nothing against texts or chat apps.  But these suffer from a right now factor.  Once you accept that this is not necessary for email, its utility goes through the roof.  Respond in an hour, respond when you get back to your desk, respond after a trip to the basement archives, respond tomorrow, you get the idea.  Remember, fast letter, not slow phone call.
• If you want to text me about where we are meeting for lunch, great.  But if you seriously expect to discuss something more complicated via text, it only means that you are not serious.  Any yes, many people, perhaps most people, are not serious about anything.
• If others expect you to respond to their emails as you would to a phone call or a chat, just don't.  And see what happens.  If it is truly that urgent, you will get a call or a text.  If your boss expects immediate responses from his emails, likely he has other unreasonable expectations as well.  It is not about email.
• The overall point is that in the ecosystem of communications, email remains a useful tool.  And those who abandon it lose the use of that tool.
• We still have letters and phone calls.  And while we may have new tools in our tool belt, we still have access to these.  Why?  Because they continue to be useful.  I bet even Paul Jones takes the occasional phone call.

Many of the problems that we associate with email are not actually about email.  They are rather about unreasonable expectations and inconsiderate users.  If other users abuse the tool, that does not mean that you must.  And it does not mean that you somehow must tolerate their abuse.  Just don't.

𓐵

What to Make of Vocal Fry

Self-indulgent insolence

Let's start with:  What is vocal fry?

The above clip, from Loudermilk, is five years old.  And it got a lot of discussion at the time.  I completely agree with the Loudermilk character (Ron Livingston) that people do not talk this way.  It is an affectation.

I never watched the Loudermilk show, but since seeing this clip on Youtube, I have noticed vocal fry everywhere.  And it is grating.  But worse than that, it is so obviously fake.

And this discussion predates Loudermilk.  Naomi Wolf was talking about this issue nine years ago.

So why bring this up now?  Here is today's Megyn Kelly Show:

My question for Eliana Johnson is:  Why would anyone pretend to talk this way?  And why would Kelly, or anyone else, take someone who does speak in this manner seriously?  No matter what one may say about the substance of Johnson's comments, it is extremely difficult to take her seriously.  Just listen to the two guests, and decide which of the two sounds more serious and believable.  Who sounds authentic?  And which of the three women might you trust?

No, Johnson is not as bad as the gal in Loudermilk's coffee shop.  She is smart enough to tone it down a bit.  But like Elizabeth Holmes, if we cannot trust her voice, how can we trust anything she says?

One final point on The Megyn Kelly Show; as I most often do, I listened to the podcast while out walking.  So I was not watching the three women on a screen.  I am sure this makes the vocal fry all the more pronounced and noticeable.  To find a good television host, Roger Ailes used to recommend that producers turn the sound off and just watch.  To really notice vocal fry, my recommendation is to turn the video off and just listen.  It hits you like a brick.

I once thought that these women are trying to sound like Katharine Hepburn.  And of course, failing miserably.  But if there's any truth in this, perhaps they are trying to sound smart and refined and sophisticated like Hepburn.  But it sounds so fake that the result is the opposite.

But I no longer believe this is the reason for vocal fry.

Let's start with the particularly egregious Fashionably Divorced.  Just watch (listen) to ANY of her videos.  I'm sorry, but it's disgusting.  Or, just listen to NPR.  On this Youtube NPR compilation (without video), one recent comment is that vocal fry communicates condescension.  Now this sounds completely true to me.  Maybe it's not an attempt to sound refined and sophisticated, but rather an attempt to convey genuine contempt for your listeners.  Without doubt the Loudermilk barista has contempt for her customers.  Fashionably Divorced conveys condescension and smugness with every syllable.

And Lord, nothing shouts smug like vocal fry on NPR.

Upspeak is another irritating habit that women sometimes glom onto.  Also annoying; but I personally do not find it anywhere as annoying as fry.  Upspeak seems to come from a lack of confidence rather than the self-indulgent insolence of vocal fry.

Whether she is on the radio or standing right in front of you, how should one deal with this self-indulgent insolence?  How should we deal with that level of smugness and condescension?  My advice is don't deal with it.  Find a new coffee ship, turn the radio off, swipe left on the video, and if she is standing right in front of you, walk away.

Do not tolerate the insolence.

Update, Tuesday, 13 August 2024

From the very next Megyn Kelly Show:

Once you hear it, it's hard to un-hear it.

𓐵