The Secret Life of Pronouns_ What Our Words Say About Us - James W. Pennebaker [155]
All humans naturally engage in causal thinking. However, some of us engage in it more than others. Some people, for example, are obsessed with knowing why bad things have happened to them. Why did I walk between those cars? Why did I have to lose my leg? In a stunning series of studies, psychologists Camille Wortman and Roxanne Silver asked thousands of people how they have dealt with major upheavals in their lives—incest, death of a child, death of a spouse. In general, those who have a simple causal explanation of a terrible event cope quite well. Another group simply doesn’t look for a causal explanation and, they, too, cope well. The one group that has the most difficulty is made up of people who desperately seek answers to why the event occurred. They frequently ask, “Why did this happen?” and “Why me?” but never find an answer.
In most circumstances, causal thinking can be invaluable. If you can find a satisfactory reason for an event, you can better deal with similar events in the future. However, if you are unable to find an answer to your question, continued searching may only bring you frustration and unhappiness.
Capturing causal thinking in language is straightforward. Recall from high school English that conjunctions are words that link words or phrases—words such as or, and, but. Some conjunctions are specifically designed to express causal thinking: words such as because, hence, therefore, since. Although not officially function words, there are also a large number of nouns and verbs that signal causation as well, such as cause, effect, reason, rationale, impel, control. The more people naturally use these words in writing and speaking, the more they search for and think about causes.
DYNAMIC VERSUS CATEGORICAL THINKING
In chapter 2, people were asked to describe a picture of two people. Two of the descriptions were:
PERSON 1: In the aforementioned picture an elderly woman is about to speak to a middle aged woman who looks condescending and calculating.
PERSON 2: I see an old woman looking back on her years remembering how it was to be beautiful and young.
Whereas the first person, a male, describes the women in fairly direct and concrete terms, the second person, a female, paints a more dynamic picture that begins to construct a story. The more categorical-thinking male sees the world in terms of objects, events, and particular people. Categorical thinking demands the use of specific or concrete nouns. And with specific nouns comes the need for articles. The first person used three articles: the aforementioned picture, an elderly woman, and a middle-aged woman. The second person used only one—an old woman.
You can see the differences in categorical and dynamic thinking in everyday life as well. John McCain and Barack Obama, as they were running for president in the fall of 2008, revealed themselves to be strikingly different in their thinking styles. Through his debates, interviews, and even speeches, McCain used articles at very high rates. Obama, on the other hand, used articles at rates lower than McCain and, indeed, any other serious candidates in the presidential race. In mid-October, the two men settled into their final debate with each other. Both were asked to explain why America’s educational system was the most expensive in the world but was not viewed as very strong among the industrialized nations.
MCCAIN: Well, it’s
civil rights issue of
twenty-first century. There’s no doubt that we have achieved equal access to schools in America after
long and difficult and terrible struggle. But what is
advantage in
low-income area of sending
child to
failed school and that being your only choice? So choice and competition amongst schools is one of
key elements that’s already been proven in places in like New Orleans and New York City and other places.
OBAMA: This probably has more to do with our economic future than anything and that means it also