Disclaimer

First time poster and this is all opinion.

Summary/tldr

My thoughts on interaction, specifically placing verbal exchanges under a microscope to examine certain root qualities I hold as truth.

Body

Verbal exchanges are influenced by variables like setting, audience, genders, etc.

But when you speak with the participant(s), you are putting out a stimulus for which there will be a response. Now, I think that when you hear a response you have to ask, is this person following the social course of the projected relationship traits or not? In other words, is their response given what we both know to be true?

Example 1: Bob the intern who has been at his banking job for one month. He passes Sue walking down the hall one morning as he usually does.

Bob: good morning Sue +1pt

Sue: morning Bob! +1pt

b: we're supposed to get snow later, in July, can you believe it? +1pt

s: unreal, that's (insert state) for ya (chuckles) +1pt

Here a 4 pt work exchange has taken place. Two people have talked to each other not as friends or lovers, but as two adults acknowledging their shared professional setting and the appropriate social interactions confined to it. I call this adults being adults.

But what if sue decides to veer off path? Well, she's providing a stimulus and it's up to Bob whether or not he follows Sue down that path. I call this off-roading (off traditional paths)

(Off-roading) Example 2: (they pass eachother in the hall again, all other things constant from ex. 1)

Sue: is that a rolex? -1 pt

Bob: (chuckles) this is just a fossil i've had for a few years +1 pt

s: thought you might've robbed the bank or something? (joke-insult: implying he can't afford it) -2 pts

b: no sue, didn't rob any banks (smiles and keep walking). +3 pts

Notice how Bob is being an adult, while Sue has basically been immature with the implicated insult and backhanded compliments she is saying. Bob detected that Sue was severly off-roading the chatter and acted to increase his points by taking the adult route.

The next time they meet sue will be at a negative rank in terms of their net social interaction. Whereas in example one both parties mutually agreed to keep the game balanced and therefore positive (Each player leaves with two points earned), now the score is -3 to +4 in bob's favor. It is now on Sue to earn those points back. Sue can't simply go back to example 1 dialogue, she must first gain the deficit so that each person is on even footing. Any attempt for her to pretend like ex 2 never happened will only increase the deficit. Bob, on the other hand, can minimize even the simpler game now as an expression of disapproval until Sue adjusts and makes up for it. Example 1 talk could be trimmed to only exchanging the good morning greeting as to not stir further problems and veer even more off-road.

Point is, Bob was an adult and respected boundaries. Sue, while her motive wasn't certain and there could be many (flirting, job role/frame manipulation, etc.), she created a series of negative points. Another slightly was extreme version of ex 2 would be Bob casting the good morning (+1) and Sue just ignoring it (-1). The deficit isn't as bad but it still exists now.

This was just one example. Another would have been where example 1 is constant aside from dialogue, occurring in a 30 day pattern, until Sue decides to ask about Bob's family, where his kids go to school, or where he's going on his next vacation. Either way Sue is off-roading and losing points in all cases except where she is building appropriate and gradual workplace rapport where the pt exchanges are equal but higher than +2 per person.

Conclusion

Every verbal exchange ends with either a winner and a loser, two winners, or two losers. The points are awarded depending on the quality and intentions of the dialogue.

Lessons Learned

Always be the winner in verbal exchanges. Bonus if both people win, but avoid losing points as they are not easy to reestablish and can often place you in a spot of permanent disadvantage with far reaching implications.

Edit: grammar