It seems very tempting, almost obvious, to attribute the uniquely wide scope of human communication to cognitive capacities for generating or harnessing the combinatorial power of language. But Heintz & Scott-Phillips (H&S-P) emphasize instead as foundational such capacities for “ostensive communication.” These “unleash expression on a grand scale” (target article, sect. 9, para. 1). My aim here is to supplement their account of the evolution of language and of other aspects of human sociality with two exhibits from the poker world, which support their view by illustrating especially the continuity between linguistic and non-linguistic communication and expression in a quite striking manner.
The first also illustrates what human communication can do even without language and its combinatorial power. In July 2016, in the Main Event of the 2016 World Series of Poker in Las Vegas, Stacy Matuson is faced with a decision for all her chips after Will Kassouf's bet, who is now talking to her relentlessly, notably offering “if you fold and show [your cards] I will show [my cards].” When he is prohibited by a floorperson from saying another word, Kassouf just repeats this same message by miming the sequence, accompanied by suitable facial expressions. A TV commentator for ESPN, Norman Chad, puts it thus: “Now he's talking without speaking! He's pushing it.” Indeed, despite not having violated the prohibition, Kassouf ends up getting penalized by the tournament director, apparently for “taunting” Matuson. Intuitively, Chad sees continuity, then, as possibly does the tournament director.
To find footage of this online, use “nine-high like a boss” as a search phrase. Incidentally, after a player's request for Matuson to arrive at a decision is approved by the floor, Chad adds something else of interest here: “Usually I'm in favor of calling the clock, but she has been under siege most of the time from Will Kassouf – I would have given her a little more room.” Come to think of it, why “under siege”? As opposed to, say, merely “distracted” by Kassouf's behavior at her table? Why could she not have closed this communication channel that brings only deception? Because, H&S-P might comment, we presume relevance and comprehend spontaneously and involuntarily (target article, sect. 4.3; such an unconditionally trusting stance can be viable normally because the message still awaits epistemic vigilance, see target article, sect. 5). Meanwhile, “speech players” like Kassouf, even the less intrusive ones, appear bound to develop a reputation for irrelevance, but it should not be as detrimental here as it typically was in human evolutionary history according to H&S-P, because it can remain linked to the game setting. Or at least that's what I would think, based on some experience in the poker room of a casino.
Later, Kassouf almost made it into the “November Nine”: the last nine survivors, out of 6,737 tournament entrants, would return months later to play out the so-called final table, for about 25 million dollars in remaining prize money. Such an interruption, to build anticipation for the final, was practiced until 2016. Thus one could prepare by using TV footage of one's opponents. A poker-behavior (“tells”) author translated into more than half a dozen languages, Zachary Elwood, offers testimonials on his website from a finalist he helped with this in 2013 and one in 2015 (hardly anyone makes the final twice – too much in poker depends on luck), adding “as far as I know, I'm the only person who's ever been hired to study tells in such a high-stakes setting” (Elwood, Reference Elwoodn.d.). Now, the reason I am trying to document Elwood's leading expertise is that my second exhibit comes from his writing. From part one of a two-part piece:
I started thinking more about a general behavioral theory I had introduced in my second book, Verbal Poker Tells. The theory applies to verbal behavior, but as I worked through the footage, I started seeing how the theory was actually part of a larger theory, affecting not just verbal behavior but also physical tells. (Elwood, Reference Elwood2015a)
Again, when he is describing one aspect of his new larger theory (I should note he is presupposing the popular No-Limit Texas Holdem poker format):
[P]layers with very strong hands don't like to draw attention to themselves early in a hand, when the pot is small. Rather, they will tend to be silent and not make ostentatious movements. Wording the tendency […] in terms of ostentatious behavior, lets us see the verbal behavior tendencies as just one part of the overall tendency not to draw attention, no matter the type of behavior, verbal or physical. (Elwood, Reference Elwood2015b)
Once the pot of contested chips is big, tendencies change (Reference Elwood2015b). But my point here is not to really present this theory. Rather, it is the continuity that Elwood came to see, after perhaps starting out cutting nature at a false joint, so to speak, between verbal and non-verbal tells. And while some or most examples of “ostentatious behavior” he provides (Elwood, Reference Elwood2015b), such as unprompted smiling, or reaching for chips before one's turn, though expressive, may not quite qualify as ostensive-communicative, H&S-P emphasize that how much an intention to inform is made overt is a matter of degree. Sometimes it is even strategically better to hide it (target article, sects. 3.2 and 8.3). This can naturally apply at a poker table.
You have
Access
It seems very tempting, almost obvious, to attribute the uniquely wide scope of human communication to cognitive capacities for generating or harnessing the combinatorial power of language. But Heintz & Scott-Phillips (H&S-P) emphasize instead as foundational such capacities for “ostensive communication.” These “unleash expression on a grand scale” (target article, sect. 9, para. 1). My aim here is to supplement their account of the evolution of language and of other aspects of human sociality with two exhibits from the poker world, which support their view by illustrating especially the continuity between linguistic and non-linguistic communication and expression in a quite striking manner.
The first also illustrates what human communication can do even without language and its combinatorial power. In July 2016, in the Main Event of the 2016 World Series of Poker in Las Vegas, Stacy Matuson is faced with a decision for all her chips after Will Kassouf's bet, who is now talking to her relentlessly, notably offering “if you fold and show [your cards] I will show [my cards].” When he is prohibited by a floorperson from saying another word, Kassouf just repeats this same message by miming the sequence, accompanied by suitable facial expressions. A TV commentator for ESPN, Norman Chad, puts it thus: “Now he's talking without speaking! He's pushing it.” Indeed, despite not having violated the prohibition, Kassouf ends up getting penalized by the tournament director, apparently for “taunting” Matuson. Intuitively, Chad sees continuity, then, as possibly does the tournament director.
To find footage of this online, use “nine-high like a boss” as a search phrase. Incidentally, after a player's request for Matuson to arrive at a decision is approved by the floor, Chad adds something else of interest here: “Usually I'm in favor of calling the clock, but she has been under siege most of the time from Will Kassouf – I would have given her a little more room.” Come to think of it, why “under siege”? As opposed to, say, merely “distracted” by Kassouf's behavior at her table? Why could she not have closed this communication channel that brings only deception? Because, H&S-P might comment, we presume relevance and comprehend spontaneously and involuntarily (target article, sect. 4.3; such an unconditionally trusting stance can be viable normally because the message still awaits epistemic vigilance, see target article, sect. 5). Meanwhile, “speech players” like Kassouf, even the less intrusive ones, appear bound to develop a reputation for irrelevance, but it should not be as detrimental here as it typically was in human evolutionary history according to H&S-P, because it can remain linked to the game setting. Or at least that's what I would think, based on some experience in the poker room of a casino.
Later, Kassouf almost made it into the “November Nine”: the last nine survivors, out of 6,737 tournament entrants, would return months later to play out the so-called final table, for about 25 million dollars in remaining prize money. Such an interruption, to build anticipation for the final, was practiced until 2016. Thus one could prepare by using TV footage of one's opponents. A poker-behavior (“tells”) author translated into more than half a dozen languages, Zachary Elwood, offers testimonials on his website from a finalist he helped with this in 2013 and one in 2015 (hardly anyone makes the final twice – too much in poker depends on luck), adding “as far as I know, I'm the only person who's ever been hired to study tells in such a high-stakes setting” (Elwood, Reference Elwoodn.d.). Now, the reason I am trying to document Elwood's leading expertise is that my second exhibit comes from his writing. From part one of a two-part piece:
I started thinking more about a general behavioral theory I had introduced in my second book, Verbal Poker Tells. The theory applies to verbal behavior, but as I worked through the footage, I started seeing how the theory was actually part of a larger theory, affecting not just verbal behavior but also physical tells. (Elwood, Reference Elwood2015a)
Again, when he is describing one aspect of his new larger theory (I should note he is presupposing the popular No-Limit Texas Holdem poker format):
[P]layers with very strong hands don't like to draw attention to themselves early in a hand, when the pot is small. Rather, they will tend to be silent and not make ostentatious movements. Wording the tendency […] in terms of ostentatious behavior, lets us see the verbal behavior tendencies as just one part of the overall tendency not to draw attention, no matter the type of behavior, verbal or physical. (Elwood, Reference Elwood2015b)
Once the pot of contested chips is big, tendencies change (Reference Elwood2015b). But my point here is not to really present this theory. Rather, it is the continuity that Elwood came to see, after perhaps starting out cutting nature at a false joint, so to speak, between verbal and non-verbal tells. And while some or most examples of “ostentatious behavior” he provides (Elwood, Reference Elwood2015b), such as unprompted smiling, or reaching for chips before one's turn, though expressive, may not quite qualify as ostensive-communicative, H&S-P emphasize that how much an intention to inform is made overt is a matter of degree. Sometimes it is even strategically better to hide it (target article, sects. 3.2 and 8.3). This can naturally apply at a poker table.
Financial support
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Conflict of interest
None.