Quiet Erasure 3: Pas de deux

Artificial intelligence is becoming extraordinarily adept at recognizing human feelings and responding in ways calibrated to our needs and vulnerabilities. Pas de deux imagines a quieter erasure: not a machine replacing love outright, but the skills and habits it rewards—anticipation, clarification, emotional regulation, a ready response—following us home. What happens when two people who care deeply for one another begin to bring less of

Clker.com

rough, spontaneous, unfinished truth of themselves into the room?

This fictional embodiment of the implications of current research was generated initially by Perplexity.ai, responding to the prompt in the Appendix.

 
Quiet Erasure 3: Pas de deux

“Because there is a deep yearning in human beings to be understood.”
—Yuval Noah Harari

“You asked it first?”
“I asked it because I was still at work. You were home.”
“I know. And you asked it about us?”
“I didn’t think of it that way.”
“I don’t think you did. Forget it.”
He nodded, though he stayed at the table.
She stood at the counter with her bag still on one shoulder. Her laptop was open beside the mail.
“Rough day. Papers. Parent meetings. Then department chair walks in, wants the curriculum notes “made clearer, more concise,” and an executive summary for him to read at the board meeting tomorrow. I spent hours on it with Claude trying to clean it up. It’s political. You know how it is. 
“And instead of having me look it over later, you just did it yourself.”
“I was trying not to bring work home.”
“But you sort of brought Claude home with you.”
She dropped her bag on the table.
“What do you mean by that?”
“At my office, I do it too. I have meetings all day where every hesitation costs something. I ask it for the risks, the objections, the version that will land. I walk into rooms already prepared for people to disagree with me.”
“That makes sense.”
“It does there.”
“But not here.”
“No.” He glanced at the laptop. “Me, too. You know, I know sometimes I even prepare the same way in my head, on the way home, before I talk with you . . .  instead of just listening first.”
Her face softened, then tightened again.
“You prepare for me?”
“Not like that. Not on purpose.”
“But you do.”
He nodded.
She sat down at the table. “Maybe I expect that.”
“Do what?”
“Maybe I just sidestep a problem so you won’t have to deal with me.”
“I don’t want to manage you.”
“I know you don’t.” Rubbing her thumb against the rim of her mug, she responded. “But you come home tired. I see it before you say anything. And I think: don’t give him one more thing. Don’t be confused. Don’t be impossible.”
“You are never impossible.”
“I hope not. I just… I want to be at least easy to love when you have already had a hard day.”
He sat down across from her.
“You do not have to do that.”
“I know you mean that.”
“I do.”
 “Some days I don’t come to you with things I can’t make sense of . . . “
He did not answer right away.
She looked up. “Say something.”
“I’m trying not to make it sound too neat.”
“Good.”
“It’s not easy . . .”
“I know.”
He paused briefly. “When did you start doing that?”
“I don’t know.”
“Try.”
She shook her head. “I really don’t know.”
“Okay.”
“You always say that when you are trying to be patient.”
“I am trying to be patient.”
“With me?”
“With myself, too.”
She almost smiled . . .
He said, “Maybe it happened slowly.”
“What did?”
“This.” He touched the edge of the laptop. “Us rehearsing what we’ll say before we’re  together.”
She stared at the screen, speaking slower . . . “At school, I’ll have students who cannot begin, keep asking for the right first sentence, right outline, the right way to say what they mean.”
“And you tell them?”
“I tell them they have to go for it, risk a bad first sentence.” She swallowed. “I tell them we can work with anything honest.”
“What?”
“Nothing.”
“Daniel.”
“I haven’t given you much room for that bad first sentence.”
She didn’t react.
“At work, that’s what I do. When someone brings a problem, you don’t just sit on it. You come up with a next step, make the numbers work, something they can maybe use, sooner than later.”
“And with me?”
“With you, to be honest, I often hear your first few words and then, it’s like I’m already working on what I’m going to say back before you finish.”
She looked down at their hands, all four in soft fists . . . 
“I know,” she said.
“I’m so sorry.”
“I know you are.”
“No. No. I mean I’m sorry that you’ve had to do that with me.”
Her eyes filled.
“That is exactly what it feels like.”
He reached across the table. 
She put her hand in his. 
For a while, neither of them spoke.
Then she said, “When I got home, I got this email from him. I was so pissed. Really angry. He took credit for my work, what I had spent months building.  I felt ashamed for being that angry. Maybe I was being vain, territorial, childish. I don’t know.”
“You weren’t.”
“See? There it is!”
“You are right. I did it again.”
“I know you want to defend me.”
“I do, I did.”
“And I needed you to know more before we try to figure out how I should respond.”
He nodded. 
“The bitch took credit for it.”
“And you were steamed.”
“Yeah, absolutely.”
“And then been ashamed of it?”
“Yes. A little, probably, at first.”
He held her hand. “That sounds devastating.”
Her mouth trembled.
“Yes,” she said. “It was.”
He waited.
“Then . . . I gave the email to Claude, along with my immediate reaction and asked it whether I was . . .  overreacting and how to respond.”
“What did it say?”
“It said my feelings were valid. No surprise there! It listed several possible explanations for his actions, and helped draft a response that was calm and professional.”
“Did you send it?”
“No.”
“Why not?”
“I don’t know.”
He waited. 
 “I think I wanted you to see it first.”
He looked at her.
 “I revised it. I had reasons ready. I. had a plan ready to show you.” 
He looked at the laptop again. “I do that too, Anna.”
“With me?”
“Yes. After you said last week that I was never really off work, I asked it how people like me bring work home without ruining relationships.”
“You did?”
“I did.”
“What did it say?”
“A great deal, as you can imagine.”
“Of course.”
“You name it . . . habits. Schedules. Scripts for checking in. It even suggested I ask you how you prefer to receive support, if you can believe it.”
“That sounds helpful!”
He looked at her blankly. ““I came to dinner with questions ready.”
“I remember.”
“You asked me something, and I knew what I was supposed to say before you were done.”
“That’s what I mean.”
“Grok was at the table with us.”
She looked toward the window.
“No,” she said. “You weren’t.”
He flinched.
“I’m not saying it reflects on how you feel about me,” she said quickly. “I never doubt that.”
“I love you.”
“I love you, too.”
“No, I mean it.” His voice broke a little. “I need you to know that I am in. I am here, right here because I want you, our life. I want the life we have not even made yet.”
She pressed his hand against her cheek.
“I know,” she whispered.
“And I don’t want us so managed that nothing real gets through.”
She closed her eyes.
“I don’t want that either.”
“I don’t want you to become a problem I solve.”
“And I don’t want you to become someone I only bring things I’ve figured out.”
 “We are good at good ideas.”
“We are.”
“At work.”
“At work.”
“Maybe we need to stop bringing Claude and Grok to dinner.”
 “Not always. I don’t want to pretend it has no place. It helps me teach. It helps me when I have too much to do. Sometimes it helps me find a way in.”
“Me too.”
“But maybe not what we call on first.”
“Not first.”
“If I am hurt, I come hurt.”
“If I am confused, I come confused.”
“Before you ask it to tell you what I mean.”
“Before I ask it to tell me what you mean.”
“That one matters.”
“It does.”
“And if we need help?”
“We ask together.”
“Together?”
“But not before we’ve tried to understand each other.”

They looked at each other.

“Do you think we can do that?”
“I think we’ll forget sometimes.”
“I hope so.”
“I’ll still reach for the easy answer.”

“And I’ll still try to make myself easier.”
“We’ll be tired.”
“Yes.”
“But maybe we can notice sooner.”
“Notice what?”
“When it all gets too smooth.”

She smiled then, almost despite herself.
“I don’t want smooth.”
“Neither do I.”
“Stop me sometimes.”
“Not to fix you.”
“No. Just ask me if that’s really what I mean.”

He nodded. “And tell me when I start talking like I’ve already written the minutes.”

She laughed softly.
“I can do that.”
“Promise?”
“I can try.”
“That isn’t a promise.”
“It’s the only one I can make and mean.”

He smiled.

“Daniel?”
“Yes?”
“I was humiliated today.”
“I know.”

She shook her head.
 “No. You don’t know yet.”

He looked down. 
“Then tell me.”

He did not reach for an answer. 
He did not ask her to explain it before she could.

He waited.

And she began.

The initial prompt:

Let's take Harari's perspective on AI as point of departure for a third Quiet erasure phenomenological creative piece, integrating in the most current research studies that explore the impact of AI engagement on both intimate, one on one relationships and the fundamental importance of dialogic learning. For characters, use two professionals, a man and woman who are romantically very much connected but not yet married. They both use AI extensively at work and in their private lives and they are beginning to recognize what it is doing to the depth and intimacy of their relationship. They are struggling to figure out a way out but it is seemingly at same time becoming more difficult over time. This should be almost entirely dialogue, little commentary. The conversation concludes with them at least more dialogically connected, their only real hope grounded in their love for eachother. Try that. Keep the conversation about the same length as the previous two Quiet Erasure pieces.

wracton@gmail.com

www.williamacton.legalshieldassociate.com

10 Reasons You Should Never Allow an AI-Phone at Dinner

The 10 listed are all pretty much "common sense," only differ in that they are (1) are more or less backed up with research, (2) most are predicated on AI being meaningfully in the mix, and (3) all were initially drafted by AI (Perplexity.) I have done extensive editing, both in content and research citations leaving the section themes in place  and inserting occasional "ME" comments.

 

Clker.com

1. An AI-Phone replaces a shared inquiry with singular, outsourced "consultations."

Dinner conversation inevitably includes questions two or more people explore together — Who was president in 1987? Research on AI-assisted trivia reveals that once an AI answer is presented, many tend to stop admitting "I don't know," even when the AI response does not seem correct or complete. Once AI is consulted, instead of thinking aloud together across the table, a shared puzzle becomes a private, quick "research" task, and the drift of the conversation may flounder temporarily to recover. [Me: from Psychology Today]

2. It suggests to dinner companion(s), in effect, that the AI is a trusted voice to be trusted . . . 

Clinical observerations have described a relational "injury," when a disagreement is settled by consulting AI rather than working it out with their companion. It can produce  feelings of distrust and having been overruled, implicitly considering the machine's judgment above that of the other person, and not infrequently, the iPhone's owner is given a slight "one up" as well in status. That's a kind of slight well beyond just checking a text message. It is stepping out of the flow — outsourcing the relationship's important "collaborative reasoning" function. [Me: another Psychology Today report]

3. It integrates in a third, unaccountable "authority" or persona into the conversation 

Philosophers studying AI-mediated communication describe AI answers as functioning as an "argument from authority." Once that voice is invoked, participants are no longer trying to persuade— they're answering to and perhaps contending with something that can be difficult to challenge successfully, or not worth the time to. [ME: that, of course, is not exactly the case with most chatbots; they can be at least probed as to their sources and process but . . . based on an technical 2026 article on Epistemics of AI byHoorn and Oosterglorenwoud]

4. It changes one of the potential underlying functions of a disagreement in conversation from collaboration to consultation.

Normal human disagreement is a dynamic process — two people testing ideas against each other, adjusting, sometimes changing their minds. Automation-bias research, first documented in aviation and clinical decision-making, shows that people almost systematically abandon their own effortful or critical  reasoning once an automated appears. At the table, that means the AI-phone doesn't just answer the question — it ends or at least compromises the process of disagreement, which may have other functions as well, such as play. [ME: from a 2011 review article]

5. It creates the sense of resolution without the important relational, time-tagged "leg work" and compromise that help provide the memory trail back later.

A 2025 blog post on AI epistemics coins the term "epistemia" — a condition where fluent, confident-sounding language substitutes for real evaluation, producing "the feeling of knowing without the labor of judgment". Applied to a conversation, that labor of judgment is the relational work — the negotiating, the listening, the occasional concession, all the nonverbal "dance" accompanying the talk — the AI-phone skips straight to a settled decision instead. [ME: from a brief, interesting piece in outline form]

6. It recasts "not knowing together" as more of a minor problem to be offloaded to AI and fixed, rather than a potentially memorable bonding experience.

Not knowing something traditionally used to be a low-stakes, even charming, part or strategy of getting closer— the shared "huh, let's think about that." Automation-bias research again shows that once an automated aid is in play, independent verification and reasoning almost by reflex are undermined as well.  Repeated, it slowly redefines uncertainty from something we "move through and explore together" into AI's standby responsibility. The emotional consequences or loss can be far reaching.  [ME: Same source article as in #4]

7. Even just sitting there on the table, innocuously, it comes to the conversation having cognitively transformed both it's owner all in the conversation . . . 

Studies of smartphone presence during conversation have found that a phone visible on the table — untouched, screen dark — measurably reduces how connected and satisfying people report the exchange to be. With an AI-phone specifically, that background presence functions less like a neutral object and more like a silent third participant who could, at any moment, spring forth and out-argue even the sharpest. (based on a 2024 article by Roach and Coughlin.) (That is not even to mention the widely discussed, but generally overblown problems with spyware surreptitiously installed on smartphone to listen in when the phone is not on.)

8. Rewiring baseline expectations for what counts as "settled" and when. 

A 2026 survey on search-first behavior found people increasingly resolve questions before a conversation even happens, describing a broader shift from "mutual discovery" to "confirmation" (xperson) in everyday talk. Bring an AI-phone to dinner and that shift moves from *before* the conversation to inside it — every open question becomes something to confirm rather than something to explore with the person you're eating with. 

9. It's quietly dulling the reasoning skills relationships depends on.(see other posts!)

MIT researchers tracked people over four weeks and found that relying on AI for definitive, on-demand answers correlated with a measurable decline in unaided reasoning — while many participants believed they were getting sharper. Users who hand over open questions to the AI-phone are not just avoiding debate; their capacity to reason things out together, or alone, very likely erodes a little each time, as well. [ME: From The Guardian, but still an accurate report]

10. It turns persuasion — the dance of relationships — into mere citation.

Healthy relationships are cultivated on the slow work of persuading, listening, and occasionally being wrong in front of someone who respects you, regardless. Once the AI-phone becomes the default appeal to authority, persuasion gets replaced by a shared willingness, at least superficially, to accept whatever the bot says, without a thorough examination of the sources consulted and the line of argument leading to the bot's conclusion — which is a much thinner, relational way to arrive at agreement. The result is a take away that is analogous to a simple citation, without associated rationale. [ME: based on the same article as in #3 above.]

The takeaway: an AI-phone at dinner doesn't just distract — it inserts a confident, unaccountable third party into a space that used to belong entirely to the two (or several) at the table. Left in the other room, letting the argument about who really won the '87 World Series stay unresolved for a time — the unresolved, perhaps slightly annoying, but the working-it-out-together sensation is grounded in a virtually, genuine "higher" level of human intelligence than AI is yet to achieve . . . 

Talk (to) Yourself into Improved English Fluency! (an almost DO-IT-YOURSELF course!)

Clker.com

And how do you do that? In part, using embodied oral reading to develop English fluency and confidence. The efficacy and methodology for the various applications for oral reading is well established. (For an excellent review of oral reading research and methodology, see Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp and Jenkins, 2001) )

What haptic pronunciation teaching has brought to the party beginning in about 2007 has been the systematic use of the body and body movement in pronunciation teaching. What that means, in effect, is that every word in the selected oral reading is "choreographed" with some degree of conscious engagement of the upper body, generally focusing on rhythm of English but also, in principle, any phonological feature of any language. 

The concept of improving your speaking fluency in private, at least certain features of it, without talking with or working with another person or instructor, is today an almost radical position, as opposed to the prevailing social-constructivist, communicative view of ideal (probably group-based) context and input. Although it is difficult to establish empirically, of course, in reality the preponderance of ALL language learning happens as learners do "homework", either internal "self talk" or explicitly out loud speaking . . .  in private. 

That successful L2 learners can improve their fluency away from public engagement is pretty much a given. (By fluency here I am limiting the discussion to the learner's ability to speaking  rhythmically and confidently--and more rapidly, using language elements that they are capable of articulating, often very haltingly or not at all.)

The model of that methodology adopted by haptic pronunciation on this blog and elsewhere has been based on that of Lessac, presented in his book, The use and training of the human voice. Although the approach was developed essentially for native speakers and many actors or public speakers in process, the principles and system are beautifully compatible with confidence and fluency development for nonnative speakers as well. In that system, learners are first reoriented to the basic movement and somatic energy in their bodies, very much like contemporary "mindfulness" therapies, for example. 

What was extraordinary back then--and even now--was the design where the entire 12-step process could be done by one person, alone, just using the book, following the plan. (One can, of course, today take courses in the Lessac method internationally, but the central premise holds: for speech fluency, as defined earlier, there is a great deal one can do on their own, such that it carries over very well into spontaneous speaking engagement.)

That, in essence, is how the KINETIK, haptic-based course works. Unfortunately, the October-December, Acton Haptic English Fluency Training (HFT) course offered through Trinity Western University is closed!!! However, there is still plenty of time, however, to set up a customized course with your organization for next spring, or plan to enroll for the upcomng January~March course. (for further information on either option, email me: wracton@gmail.com

A few excerpts from the HFT course description: 

HFT Embodied Oral Reading is done out loud, in private, using stories that are accompanied by special gestures which use language and vocabulary that students are already familiar with, what they can understand, but perhaps may not be able to talk about fluently.

The 9-week course is designed especially for non-native English-speaking adults who do not have the opportunity for much, if any English, face-to-face conversation in their daily lives but who want to keep improving, nonetheless. (and who have an IELTS reading ability of about 4.0 or above.) HFT provides the student with a set of skills so that they can continue improving after the course, working with other readings of interest to them. It is recommended, for example, for students who are not studying spoken/conversational English currently.

It is based on extensive research (and decades of teaching experience) in oral reading methodology and the well-known "Lectio Divina" tradition in meditation practice, using extensive oral reading as homework—not in a class. The key neuroscience-based innovation of HFT is the precise use of gestures and touch in the visual field, synchronized with speech, creating optimal conditions for attention, learning, retention and recall.

Course work is done individually, with four or five, 30-minute homework assignments and a live 75-minute zoom feedback meeting weekly, usually on Friday evening. (which is also recorded for later access, if necessary.)

Next course: January ~ March, 2024

·Cost for individuals: $350 USD, materials included, but for a school, for example, (maximum of 100 students) the cost per student can be as low as $25 USD.

A teacher training course in Haptic Pronunciation Teaching is also available (See www.actonhaptic/KINETIK

To enroll or for more info, go to www.actonhaptic/hft or contact Bill Acton at wracton@gmail.com

Full citation: 

Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. & Jenkins, J. 2021. Oral Reading Fluency as an Indicator of Reading Competence: A Theoretical, Empirical, and Historical Analysis DOI: 10.4324/9781410608246-3, in (Eds) Kamee'enui, E. & Simmons, D. 2002. The Role of Fluency in Reading Competence, Assessment, and instruction: Fluency at the intersection of Accuracy and Speed: A Special Issue of scientific Studies of Reading, New York: Rutledge, pp. 239-256

CAST away stress: The Forest Walkabout-Talkabout

If you are going to be at the 2023 BCTEAL Annual Conference on May 5th (at 11 a.m.) at the University of British Columbia, please join us, Angelina Van Dyke and myself, for a casual stroll together, with delightful accompanying conversation through the Arboretum for about an hour. 

The teaching technique demonstrated, the "walkabout," is based on two other techniques: CAST (Collaborative Attending Skills Training) and the "walkabout," a feature of Australian culture made popular by the movie, Crocodile Dundee, when the leading actor, reported having had his marriage come apart some time back . . .  because he had gone out for one in the "outback" . . . for three months! (Have reported on that technique earlier on the blog, as well.)

The CAST system, also described on the blog earlier, focuses on teaching ELLs of almost any proficiency level to carry on conversations in groups of three or four, using "attending skills," where one student tells a good story, a second facilitates the conversation, and a third takes notes on the conversation. After three or four minutes, the conversations stop and the instructor then goes around to each group and elicits examples of effective conversational discourse strategies. 

In this case, students and teacher walk through the forest for about 5 minutes as students, in the small groups, walk and talk, attending to their mutually constructed stories. They pause for about 10 minutes, reflecting on the strategies used by the attender in supporting the story teller's story, and then set off again, with three other students taking on the CAST roles. The effect is dramatic, even in the relatively short 60-minute session. (The Walkabout - Talkabout works best when carried out for about 90 minutes--or more!) 

(Note: Come prepared with a good little personal story to share, one known only to you that you can share in about 3 or 4 minutes!) 

Touching teaching of expressiveness!

Photo credit:
discover-victoria-island.com

On February 21st, at the 2015 BCTEAL - Island Conference, Professor Aihua Liu of Harbin Institute of Technology, a visiting professor here at Trinity Western University, and myself, will be doing a workshop entitled, "A touching and moving approach to teaching expressiveness."

Here is the program abstract: 

In this practical, “hands on” workshop, a haptic-integrated (using movement and touch) classroom-tested system for teaching conversational intonation and expressiveness will be demonstrated and practiced by participants. The 8 basic techniques include 5 for intonation and 3 others for adding on changes in pitch, pace, volume and discourse foregrounding.

And the detailed summary:

Teaching English intonation can be challenging for any language teacher, due in part to the unique uses of intonation patterns at the discourse level.  Although pronunciation textbooks for students generally present basic intonation patterns with practice activities, that is, of course, only the beginning. It is one thing to be able to imitate or use a simple rising intonation contour on a type of yes/no question or a falling pattern on a simple statement, but it is still quite a leap to expressing a wider range of emotion in speaking.

The haptic model presented has students initially speak along with a model or instructor when working on a new or unusual stretch of expressive speech. Rather than just speaking the sentences, however, learners gesture along with the model to enhance their ability to not just produce but recall more accurately the “extra” features of pitch, pace, volume and discourse focus (or foregrounding).

The workshop is based on principles of “Essential haptic-integrated English Pronunciation,” developed by Acton and colleagues. Participants are provided with guidelines for using the framework in classes with teenage and adult learners and given access to video models on the web of the techniques presented.

Join us, if you can!

Aerobic Haptic Breakout #3

Here is the 3rd of 3 "Aerobic Haptic" break out sessions done last weekend at the BCTEAL conference.  Here is the Rhythm Fight Club presentation and the outline of what is going on from the conference handout:

Pedagogical

• ·      Increased speed of delivery
• ·      Produces greater processing time
• ·      Unstressed Syllable "compacting" (stressed syllable lengthening)
• ·      Contrast between stressed and unstressed syllables

Common sense

• ·      Releases frustration, tension, aggression!
• ·      Enhanced assertiveness
• ·      Confidence builder; creates a new "persona" for some
• ·      Impacts conversational delivery rapidly, within days
• ·      Energizing, just "fun!"

Brain-friendly

• ·      Bilateral stimulation
• ·      Switching effect on hemispheric interaction
• ·      Executed in lower visual field (affective loading)
• ·      Synchronizes body rhythm with syllable rhythm
• ·      Strong textural anchoring (wadded paper in hand) with crushing, fist

The revenge of the canonical and "why the haptic in HICP?"

Clip art: Clker

On a pronunciation-related discussion board, Gary Carkin, Chair of the Spech-Pronunciation-Listening Interest Section in TESOL--and drama instructor, makes a very interesting point. (See the link to Gary's website on the sidebar.) The topic related to how to teach "attitude" along with intonation:

 " . . . Getting students to express that intent through their intonation and stress, slowly ingrains a habit. It takes a lot of repetition and is a slow process, but at least it is likely to stay with them more than when the problem is simply explained to them because they are feeling what they need to express (through character) and how that feeling will be successfully expressed . . . " 

One aspect of pronunciation teaching where explanation, good explanation, is critical is in working with the canonical in conversational discourse, that is the regular or expected locations in conversation where words are stressed and attitudes are relatively transparent. (See these examples of canonical poetry, that is basically more traditional poetry with regular rhythm patterning.) That generally indicates new or foregrounded information in English. Students' ability to even begin to interpret instances where sentence stress does not fall where anticipated depends, first of all, on having what Carkin terms a "feeling" for the canonical. 

One of the most serious shortcomings of much classroom work on focus and attitude today is the tendency to attend to explanation and the exceptions before the canonical is sufficiently established, creating a chaotic mix for the learner and no real basis on which to quickly identify the non-canonical, and, pulling back to the overall intent of the conversation momentarily, take a guess at what is up. That requires two things in tandem: First, as Carkin notes " . . . repetition" (exactly how much and when is the key question here) and an understanding of why it lands there. The latter can only be done in the context of a conversation, not in isolated sentences. Second, the feeling has to be anchored well. 

A clear (proactive, cognitive) framework for learners, along with haptic anchoring at least makes the process more efficient for those who do not learn as well inductively. (For those gifted "inducters" who can, drama is the only way to get it!)  With that balance "in hand," repetition, listening, drama--even habits(!), become more potent and engaging. So, ignore the canonical at your peril . . . most everything depends upon it.