Below is a quote tweet (see below for prerequisite original tweet) I have on language that I think is quite strong so I wanted to externalize it here:
this is a very interesting idea when examining the role(s) of language and behavior.
1] if stances are “discrete patterns of muscle tension” that serve to constrict certain predictions within a given context, and if language is a symbolic projection of felt senses and internal representations (very simplified i know), then certain stances bring about different linguistic patterns. you could say a stance is the constraint that sets the linguistic possibility space, and output works within those constraints.
2] this is pretty obvious in acting— actors who can hold the stance of their characters well naturally produce dialogue, without a script, that matches their character, because the tension they’re holding constrains the linguistic possibility space in a specific way.
3] you can also take the example of trying to emulate someone else’s writing patterns— you’re trying to copy their exact patterns of tension, which is very hard to do. you can probably get decently close to someone’s style, but you’ll never be exact, and it’ll never be as informationally rich or generative. the low-level informational landscape is too rich to be fully known and copied.
4] this also gives more context to those who are very good speakers— they have the ability to release the tension holding common linguistic constraints. being in a professional environment, for example, would “flip on” certain latches, making things like cursing unreachable, or at least harder to reach. but charismatic speakers are often orthogonal to being constrained— they’re uniquely free to traverse language landscapes (and probably stances of speech as well, like tone of voice).
5] and if we consider that tension is often held as a prediction to prevent bad things from happening, then the language a stance permits is the language that keeps those predictions safe. there’s sort of a “linguistic self-fulfilling prophecy” going on here, as we often don’t speak of things that would endanger our deeply held patterns.
6] as a proxy, the language a stance prevents is often a tell of what’s going on inside you. from the QT— “Often it’ll be that a hidden list of very specific bad things will not happen; to know someone is to know their list” becomes observing the things a person cannot utter in their specific stance. this is also why vulnerability with other people often requires temporarily stepping out of the tension pattern that was preventing you from saying the scary thing in the first place.
7] there is actually quite interesting research on second languages, which often finds that people who speak a second language can be more vulnerable in their l2 than in their l1. this might be because the first language’s words were acquired in high-arousal/stressful settings, so each one indexes into more unpleasant addresses of tension patterns. the second language was likely wired in emotionally neutral or positive contexts, so it maps to a stance that isn’t as unpleasant. in someone’s l1, they would need to “break out of” their current stance to utter what their l2 allows in most stances; in l2, you “step out of the tension pattern” simply by changing which address-space you speak from. caldwell-harris et al.* found that interviewees preferred english for emotional expression because its social environments felt less restrictive, noting that “respondents nonetheless preferred to express their emotions in english, citing more relaxed social constraints in english-speaking environments.” it is plausible to me that chinese culture would clench more around endearments (e.g., “thank you,” “i miss you,” “i love you”), making that vulnerability harder to reach in a stance dealing with mandarin, while english would produce “looser” stances.
*https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1367006910379262
other relevant research: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19401183.1986.12461512 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-19352-8
8] “language is magic” is a pretty common take, and now i think it’s common because language drives and binds certain stances to mesh together, especially when you organize around a certain set of knowledge, like in religion. in a tweet, i model language as “a sort of ‘cognitive glue’ (borrowing from Levin) in which it binds together all sorts of connected nodes from the three layers of knowledge [embodied, representational, notational].” in this sense, collective organization around a set of knowledge is about holding particular stances that provide the language that generates the nodes of knowledge specific to the collective. meaning, buddhism holds specific buddhist language precisely to elicit the correct nodes of knowledge, held by patterns of tension, or stances.
9] i model language as “addressable token[s], recursively generating connected clusters of addresses” pointing toward more nodes of knowledge. given that mike models the nervous system as an “FPGA (field programmable gate array — essentially a programmable computer chip),” i think it’s interesting to consider language as an activation signal for certain arrays in the nervous system, given that latches can be mapped to set, specific areas that bring about specific tension to hold predictions in place. language-tokens could index into vascular-addressable-units.
10] this also gives us insight into what framing effects do when language is involved— a frame, like a title, label, or metaphor, is a token that indexes a configuration of vascular tension, mental and physical. and because this tension helps hold predictions in place, it colors our perception to confirm what we so deeply predict sensory input should be. framing effects set certain clench patterns that fix the available constraints and nodes of knowledge within a certain linguistic landscape. generative frames therefore act as an unclenching device, meant to “loosen” our stuck tension patterns so we can literally see things differently.
11] i think this also emphasizes the importance of long(er)-term writing— as we move through different passes of language, we can refine it to fit across diverse stances. at one moment you may write a specific phrase due to the tension you’re holding that day, while the next you’ve dropped it and a new phrase is unlocked. this makes the act of writing a “freeze frame of discrete patterns of muscle tension” that can be surgically updated.
12] all this said, language is obviously not deterministic in the way this tweet draws it out to be. context, environment, the people around you, etc. all influence language and behavior in complicated ways, and behavior is often decoupled here— but i still think this idea of language being constrained by your vasocomputation “stance” is valuable.
Original Tweet I am quote tweeting:
There’s something in vasocomputation I’ve been calling a “stance” or way of feeling — stances are essentially discrete patterns of muscle tension (primarily vascular tension) that we can jump into and which offer specific affordances. The girl in this video is a great example: she goes from her default stance, to professional-calm, back to default (with a big release of tension)
Vasocomputation’s basic thesis is “vascular clenches stabilize neural patterns” — patterns of muscle tension will set certain aspects of phenomenology as constants and others as variables. I.e. every stance has a certain internal feeling that defines the stance and as long as you hold this feeling, you “hold frame” — if you lose the feeling (i.e. if this core pattern of stabilizing tension shifts), you break frame.
This would predict method actors will exhibit distinct patterns of muscle tension (especially vascular tension) across different roles; to take on a role is to take on a specific pattern of tension. Jung’s work on archetypes involve enumerating particularly natural and functional stances for us to fall into; subtle checkerboard patterns of tension & absence of tension we can inhabit that have useful affordances
We’re sort of fish-in-water in that we all have a default stance, i.e. a pattern of tension we habitually hold to feel like ourselves. Some of this tension is likely latched, and some isn’t; unlatched tension can be relaxed on the order of seconds-to-minutes if we find the right prompt, whereas latched tension will be constant across all situations until it’s explicitly released. What Buddhism calls the “self” will be a combination of latched tension (vascular muscle that is physically glued into a contracted state) and tension that is merely habitually clenched (i.e. *not* physically latched)
Vasocomputation suggests that every pattern of muscle tension is also a prediction, often held until some specific perception becomes true. Everybody has muscle tension; it’s worth thinking about what your particular pattern of muscle tension is predicting. Often it’ll be that a hidden list of very specific bad things will not happen; to know someone is to know their list
I think a really important part of childhood is learning the feeling of being loved & being safe, and incorporating these feelings into our default stance, the way we habitually hold our smooth muscle
The girl in this video has a very pleasant default stance — it is a pleasant thing to be her. But her default stance doesn’t seem to offer a wide range of social affordances, so she’s learned how to jump into a more professional mode (defined by a specific pattern of tension). But stress builds up when she inhabits it and uses its affordances; perhaps it feels transgressive to ask for room service