Nichols College

A Plague of Tics: A Communication View

PJ Tessier
Business Communication
Professor Temple
4/11/16

A Plague of Tics is a biographical essay written by David Sedaris. The humorous and
painfully awkward dialogue tells the story of Sedariss progression into adulthood, all revolving
around his obsessive compulsive behavior. Every year teachers made a point of speaking to his
mother, who for some reason, seems to almost ignore the severity of her sons actions. The tics
grew in numbers as Sedaris aged but are found in the end to cease when he picked up smoking in
college. In this essay, Sedaris sees his actions as normal and cannot fathom why people do not
act like him. The humor is dry and evident but masked by the realness of the situations described.
Sedaris is successful in keeping the mood of the story light, while going into deep detail of his
peculiar actions. Obsessive compulsive behavior is not common but this piece forges the ability
to see why someone with these tics is making the decisions they are making. It is not that they
want to act this way, but more of an unending desire in order to keep them sane.
One of the most interesting subtopics of the essay is the different relationships Sedaris
has with others. With the exception of similar relationships with all of his teachers, Sedaris has a
different relationship with every other character. Real world concepts can be put to use by
relating them to the dialogue of the essay. Communication is something that Sedaris struggles
with, but he is only part of the issue when taking an outside look. Some of the concepts include
stereotyping, the negativity bias and the fundamental attribution error. These are concepts you
might learn in a psychology or communication course but have the most impact when they are
related to some kind of real life situation. While Sedaris is seen as a social outcast, there are
more complex reasons than his obvious behavior.
Stereotyping in the modern world is real and is used regularly in everyday situations.
Whether they know it or not, every person stereotypes both intentionally and inadvertently.
Many of these stereotypes revolve around race or gender. It can be boiled down to commonly

heard statements such as: All Asians are smart, or, women are better cooks. These types of
statements bring the definition of stereotyping to its fullest. In the most basic sense, stereotyping
is judging others based on previously heard or believed judgements. These are passed around
through relationships and detriment us all because they may lack sufficient evidence to validate
themselves. While there are stereotypes that seem true, there are always outliers that do not hold
true to the norm. When looking at the life of David Sedaris, it is clear that many of the characters
in the book notice his obscure actions but identify them as being different, and ultimately
concluding that anyone who acts that way has something wrong with them. Sedaris teachers are
the first characters to appear in the story, and stereotype him based on his actions. Miss Chestnut
is the first teacher to appear in the essay and the stereotyping comes right away. Is she blind,
your mother? Can she see the way you behave, or do you reserve your antics exclusively for
Miss Chestnut? (Sedaris, 8). A quote like this is almost a word for word replication of a
stereotype. Here, Miss Chestnut is implying that poor parenting is the reason for Sedaris
outlandish actions. While this might be true, Miss Chestnut is coming to this conclusion on her
own, without any prior knowledge of life in the Sedaris household. This kind of belief then gets
carried on to the next time Miss Chestnut has a similar student. Since it cannot be easily
explained, it must be the style of parenting that made the individual this way. Anyone can make
this judgement but how can it be backed? Without statistics and knowledge backing the
statement, it is no more than saying red and blue are the same color. Miss Chestnut does not
know the true reason for Davids actions but making a judgement like this is not for her to make.
Stereotyping is a scapegoat for finding the true reason behind the judged action. Only when it is
backed is it appropriate, and if it is, it becomes fact.

On a somewhat related note, the negativity bias is also evident in Sedaris teachers as
well as his family. It is described in In the Company of Others as: Our tendency to be influenced
more heavily by negative than positive information (Rothwell, 53). This takes a deeper look at
stereotyping and explains why it has anything but diminished from our behavior. Imagine
reviews for a restaurant, there may be 100 applauding the staff and quality of service, but reading
the one or two poor reviews make more of an impact on the final decision. This also brings
personal preference into the situation. Some people may prefer someone who is confident, but
others may seem confidence as a negative trait and judge the individual poorly for it. In the case
of David Sedaris, little is described about his good qualities, because only poor qualities make up
the essays topics. Teachers, parents and siblings, all see his behavior as a negative quality and
pass over the possibility that he might have more to offer than is seen. Davids mother, Mrs.
Sedaris, comes off as almost unbothered by her sons behavior but her true feelings are
discovered as the story progresses. When Miss Chestnut is over to speak about the problems she
sees in David, his mother openly mocks his behavior by imitating his bizarre repetitive actions
(Sedaris, 13). Mrs. Sedaris is an odd character, and without even reading in depth it is apparent
she is unhappy with her entire life situation. Her house is an unorganized mess and her sons
behavior is far from the norm. Further reading would indicate her desire for alcohol, which only
brings out more of her feelings (Sedaris, 13-15). The behavior of mimicking her son comes from
her strong acknowledgement of his differences. Whether she knows it or not, this behavior is her
way of venting to others about how she feels about her son. She is never ashamed of her sons
behavior as she strongly believes he would grow out of it, but it bothers her enough to not go
unnoticed. The essay never shows any true motherly characteristics, but that may be for
dramatic effect. If not, the idea of the negativity bias is in full swing. Mrs. Sedaris shows no

behavior indicating she sees her son for anything other than a mentally unsound boy. She
acknowledges his behavior but her attention to him does not go further than that. A mother,
stereotypically I might add, is supposed to understand her children. She knows their preferences,
dislikes and why they behave the way they do. This concept is all but present in the story. She
makes no attempt to further her understanding of her son, and only jokes about his serious
behavioral differences. I could not think of a better candidate for the negativity bias, even if I had
written this story myself.
Davids father, Mr. Sedaris, is one of the less prevalent characters in the storyline.
Although his interactions are brief, it is more than enough to determine how their relationship is
set up. The fundamental attribution error can be used to describe the reasoning for the
relationship David holds with his father. In the Company of Others defines this concept as
overemphasizing personal traits and underemphasizing situational causes of other peoples
behavior (Rothwell, 54). Behavior is often related to upbringing whether parents like to believe
it or not. A child with poor behavior might learn this from what they see at home. Related, is the
ability of a parent to help their children see the impact of their behavior. This is something
missing in the Sedaris household. One example that holds true to this reasoning was an
interaction between David and his father, relating to Davids behavior of pressing his nose
against objects. Hey sport, if youre trying to get a look at the contents of your skill, I can tell
you right that youre wasting your time. Theres nothing there to look at, and these reports cards
prove it (Sedaris, 15). How does a child respond to this? In this example David was put down
by his own father, but for what reason? Mr. Sedaris sees his sons actions in the wrong way.
David acknowledges his behavior but how can he fix it? The stereotypical father is supposed to
help his children, not put them down. The alternative approach to this series of events would be

to help David find the root cause of his behavior, not scold him for doing something he us unable
to avoid. Mr. Sedaris is not alone in representing this concept, but holds the highest level of
accountability. The actions themselves are not the problem, but rather the cause of the actions as
a whole. How can David change his behavior, if he doesnt understand why it is happening to
him? Although late in the story this behavior ends when David picks up smoking (Sedaris, 21),
working to find a solution should be a familial effort, not just from a single child.
Relationships are complicated, even from the most basic view, and only increase in
complication as new concepts are added. Stereotypes make every action judgement ridden and
only escalate the complications of interpersonal relationships. They place a predetermined
characteristic on an individual even if they are an outlier from the norm. Going more in depth
you find the negativity bias and the fundamental attribution error. Weighing negative information
more than positive only creates unwanted problems. It brings out poorly viewed traits and gives
them more power over the true behavior of an individual. The fundamental attribution error gives
a person the ability to see this behavior and see it only as at is, not for the true cause of it. David
Sedaris grew up in a psychologists dream experiment. Every relationship he had was littered
with these concepts and strays far from the normal family we see today. He has obsessive
compulsive behavior, and is judged by everyone in his life. Even his parents act on a word for
word definition of the concepts reviewed. The only hope for someone in this position is to find
someone that understands. Someone that can help find the root of the behavior and determine
how to make a change. David lucked out in a sense, with his cigarette addiction ceasing his
behavior but solving one problem only creates another, and in this case, Sedaris sees a terrible
habit as his only way out.

Works Cited:
Rothwell, J. Dan. "Chapter 2: Perception of Self and Others." In the Company of Others: An
Introduction to Communication. New York: Oxford UP, 2013. 35-61. Print.
Sedaris, David. "A Plague of Tics." Naked. Boston: Little, Brown, 1997. 7-22. Print.