Winning vs. Gaining

In the world we are currently living, it seems to me that we have forgotten a few things about disagreement and persuasion.  Let’s look at how some of the words we use to describe these things are used presently with what they actually mean. 

Argument.  This word is often thought of as a describing a verbal altercation.  Conflict seems to be implied.  Most basically, an argument is a position on a topic.  Making an argument is simply giving information that you used to determine your position, usually so that others can determine if they reach the same conclusion from that information.  In a healthy discussion, people will be able to give and receive arguments, and thus formulate or reform their own beliefs. 

Debate.  We tend to think of a debate in terms of a competition.  Contenders argue, and the best arguer is deemed the winner.  Debate is supposed to be a comparison of ideas.  The ideas are put forth and arguments are made about why the idea is a good one, and the best idea wins.  Or doesn’t.  Perhaps there are more than one good idea.  Or no good ideas.  The point is the ideas are what should be evaluated.  Unfortunately, we have to consider the skill of the presenter of each idea into what we are evaluating.  If we are not proficient at being able to separate the content from the package, we can easily mistake the shiniest presentation for the best idea. 

If we want to be effective communicators, it is definitely to our advantage to improve our ability to present our ideas in the best possible way to ensure that poor presentation does not diminish our position.  It is equally, or possibly more important, to be able to distinguish the actual information we are hearing from an opposing viewpoint and not just the presentation.  Most often, we won’t be wowed into changing our minds by hearing a slick presentation that is contrary to our beliefs, but we are certainly likely to disregard information because it was presented in a way we find to be disagreeable. 

My challenge to you is that you learn to see debate as an opportunity to gain, and not as an opportunity to win or lose.  This will help to approach opposing viewpoints with an open mind and the intention to honestly and critically evaluate them.  It will also help to allow us to present our own viewpoints without the fear that it is us on display instead of our ideas.  If I present an idea that is vigorously critiqued, then I get the opportunity to consider alternatives, and whether I change or keep my position, I have learned and grown from the experience.  If I evaluate an opposing position without regard to who is presenting the information, I can learn and grow despite whether I agree or disagree. 

I'd like to hear if you have experienced a debate as a zero-sum competition of right against wrong, and if you think that it's possible to find a nuanced middle ground.  Please let me in the comments!

Knowing your Audience… and your Medium!

The concept of knowing your audience is one that anyone who has ever written or spoken publicly has heard.  Most people in general have heard it used colloquially to caution against speaking in a way that could be deemed appropriate in some instances, but is considered inappropriate in the situation at hand.  When digital communication, especially social media comes into play, “knowing the audience” becomes vastly more difficult.  To simply identify who will be receiving the communication is not easily established because once you hit send, the internet has it and it can be infinitely copied and transferred and moved to different places where the exposure is potentially everyone that exists and everyone that will ever exist.  This is a scary proposition. 

It is easy to think that the only way to be safe and ensure that your communication is appropriate is avoid communicating.  I contend that this is a very one-sided approach to attaching responsibility for communication.  In a world in which every communication will potentially be received by the sum total of humanity, present and future, it is imperative that the receiver of the communication take some responsibility.  First, let me lay the foundation for why.

In the days before digital communication, most communication occurred first-hand, at least on the individual level.  If a person was having a conversation, it was likely that he or she was aware of who was the other party.  If it was a relative or old friend, then there was an established relationship with defined expectations and a general understanding of what was appropriate and what was not.  If something was borderline, or seemed inappropriate, one’s initial reaction might be to question:    

                                       -Did I understand that correctly?

-Did the other party miscommunicate that?

-Am I missing vital information that might change the context?  

Of course, if it was communication with a stranger or with someone with which there was not such a well-established relationship, the same such communication might be questioned, but would more likely be taken offense to and assumptions would be made about the party sending the message.

Communication that was not personal was slightly more detached.  Advertisements on billboards might send a message that an observer didn’t agree with.  That observer would most likely disregard the message.  Perhaps it might be mentioned to another person in conversation (as an advertisement, it seems like that might be a good thing), or if the person was horribly offended, perhaps he or she might contact the advertiser, or choose to not do business with them. 

I think where we often see communication problems in today’s digital world is that we do not properly evaluate whom we are communicating with, nor how we are communicating.  If I post a message on a social media site, my intent might be to make a statement that I believe to be true (or satirical, or clever, or humorous) to those that I communicate with.  Often I could incorrectly evaluate the relationship that I have with even the intended viewers.  If we are digitally “connected”, then I might assume that we have an established relationship.  I forget that we have not done the work that it takes in the real world to forge those levels of understanding.  Taking offense will likely happen easily.  I also might forget that posting on social media is not like an in-person utterance, a written note, or a phone call.  It is the digital version of the highway billboard that is seen by everyone that passes. 

Here’s where the responsibility of the receiver comes in.  With the billboard example, the higher the level of response, the greater the effort required.  If we hate the message (or perceived message) and disregard it, no energy is required.  If we talk about it, some energy is required.  If we boycott or respond to the owner of the message, much energy is required.  With a social media post that is absolutely comparable to a billboard, the energy required to even aggressively respond is not much greater that what it is to move along.  If we responded to the billboard by placing our own billboard right next to it; That’s social media. 

It's the responsibility of the viewer of social media to ask the questions we reserve for those to whom we give the benefit of the doubt.  Did I understand that?  Not everyone has the same experiential lens through with to see the world.  If I want to honestly evaluate what a person means and why they are saying a thing, I must be willing to do the legwork to find out.  It is easy to judge through my lens without having any concept of with whom I am communicating.  Did the other party miscommunicate that?  I value this one greatly.  It is more beneficial to personally communicate with someone for clarification than it is to immediately assert why he or she is so wrong.  If I do not fully understand the message, as intended, before I erect my righteous-response billboard, then I am at fault for any misunderstanding.  If the conversation happens via a visible thread, that’s not me seeking to understand.  That’s me trying to make an example.  I should reach out privately.  Preferably in person.  At least on the phone.  Humans can still interact off-line.  Finally, am I missing information that provides context?  We live in a world where sources are sited continually, but rarely verified.  In fact, they are rarely even evaluated.  Every individual has a platform to publish, and are not limited (greatly) in what can be presented.  It doesn’t have to be true, it doesn’t have to be honest, it doesn’t even have to be understood.  Often, we allow a headline to serve as our validation as readily as we would an expert testimony.  There is little we can do to limit what information is put out there, other than to be diligent that we are not putting out information that we don’t absolutely know to be certain.  What we can do is be critical of everything we see, especially that with which we can easily agree, and we can be certain to exhaustively scrutinize the information, while giving every effort to fully understand the person that is sending the message. 

Please comment to let me know your thoughts on whether or not people have different communication expectations online than they do in real life. 

Understanding the Pathway from Emotion to Expression

Understanding the Pathway from Emotion to Expression

 

One of the most common reasons that communication is unproductive is because accountability is misplaced.  I do not mean that the wrong person or persons are held, or not held, accountable.  I mean that a person or person misunderstands what is being judged.

Emotions (or feelings) are fundamentally human.  Information is received by a person and there is often a response that is felt.  We get information from sensory input:  We see, hear, touch, taste, and smell things.  We also have memories of previous experiences that can stir an emotion within us.  These feelings are unconscious and they come from the most primitive parts of our brains.  These feelings are always valid.  They mean something to us.  They should not be dismissed.  Each individual absolutely has the right to his or her feelings and should not be expected by anyone else to feel differently.  These feelings are invisible and inaccessible to anyone outside of the individual.  It is absolutely unfair to judge someone because of what he or she feels.  

Expression is any exhibition of behavior.  These are choices we make.  These are the things that are visible.  These are the manifestations that project to the world our response to the input we received.  

The good news is that efficient pathways exist between emotions and expression.  We can add steps between the two in order to better direct our output and be more likely to get a desired reaction.  The first tool that we have to refine feelings is thought.  Thoughts are created, not spontaneous.  Our conscious mind is responsible for thought and we inevitably learn how to evaluate what we are feeling.  Thoughts are yours, and they are internal.  You are slightly more accountable for your thoughts because you consciously created them, but because they are not accessible to anyone else, you still cannot be judged for them.  Next is language, both written and spoken.  Language is essentially projecting your thoughts publicly.  This is the point in which we have crossed from internal to external.  Now there will absolutely be judgement.  Now you are absolutely accountable.  Now there is communication.  At least two parties are involved, and you are now responsible for generating something that can be reacted to by another.  Finally, there is behavior.  This is when you do something that can be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, and felt by those around you.  Complete judgement.  Complete accountability.  

The pathway can be direct.  You have seen this.  Infants have a direct pathway.  When they feel, they react.  If they feel angry or afraid, they cry.  Feelings directly elicit a behavior.  This is a very easy model requiring no learned skills, but it is also a very inefficient model.  Of all the people who experience this behavior from the baby, only someone already concerned will respond in a way that is helpful to the baby.  The loving parent of the baby will attempt to determine a way to create a different feeling in the baby.  Sometimes easily, sometimes requiring more effort.  

Consider this scenario- You’re in a public crowd, maybe in an airplane, in a restaurant, or in a store.  An infant is screaming.  A desperate mother is attempting to console the baby through mostly guesswork.  Maybe hungry?  Maybe tired?  Maybe wet?  Maybe just annoyed.  In any case, the baby’s communication is LOUD and unspecific. (I know moms; babies have very specific cries for specific needs.  But only after they learn them, and they must also be learned by the mother) Ok, how did you mentally respond to the baby’s behavior?  Maybe you felt sorry for the mom and wanted to help.  Maybe you were annoyed and wanted to get them away from you.  The point is, your reaction wasn’t to the baby’s feelings.  You reacted to the baby’s actions.  

How about this one- A teenager feels wronged by rule or judgement, and acts out in protest.  Perhaps it’s only a verbal tirade.  Maybe it is an act of defiance.  Maybe it’s withdrawal.  Could merely be a dramatic sigh and eye roll, but there is a definite action.  What do you think? Whatever your response, it was to the behavior.  Perhaps you considered the feeling the teen was attempting to display, and I hope you did, but you the proper place for accountability lies with the behavior and not the feelings.  

Last one- Slightly different.  You’re having a bad day.  I mean the worst.  It seems that nothing has gone right and that every bit of sensory input and recollection of experience that you have had has been negative.  You’re sad or mad or both.  For something silly, you lash out at who is near you (your significant other, or your parent, or a friend).  The response from this person is measured and thoughtful.  Somehow, in response to your poor behavior, this wise and gracious soul determined that your behavior that you are fully accountable for should not be reacted to in the way in which you deserve.  This person knows exactly the right things to say.  How did you mentally react to this one?  I think most of us want to think that we appreciate this person, and that we will choose our behavior more carefully next time.  If we’re honest, is that what we actually do, or does it occur again and again because we tend to take advantage of the fact that we don’t have to change our behavior to have someone attend to our wants and needs?  Oh yeah, one more thing…  If we repeat the exercise and replace our loved one with a stranger, does it change the scenario for you?   

I realize that I used progressing age groups in the previous examples.  Don’t take that to mean that the skill of using thought to develop mindful behaviors happens automatically with age.  It must be practiced.  A well-practiced youngster can understand his or her responsibility for behavior, and a grown person who has never figured it out can be just as reckless by acting out with unbridled emotion.  

One last note about practicing being responsible.  Like many other skills, the better you get, the faster you can be without error.  When you are just starting out, taking time to respond to others words or actions, or even to sensory input and your own emotions, is a way to reduce the likelihood of doing or saying something you’ll not want to stand behind.  

Comment below to let me know if you have had an experience with misplaced accountability, and share this with others who you think would appreciate it. 

Productive Communication in a Digital World

Over the past few months, as I have been afforded the opportunity to slow down and become more aware of the world around me, I have been struggling with what I can offer to help.  I have become increasingly sensitive to the seemingly universal complaint of discontent over unproductive communication.  People are not feeling heard.  People are feeling forced to take a stand, even on issues that they do not fully understand.  People are feeling attacked for no reason.  People are feeling ashamed and not sure why.  People want desperately to be able interact with one another in meaningful ways. 

With this blog, it is my goal to help anyone be able to understand what this all means for each one individually, and what it means to us all collectively.  I intend to provide the tools necessary to get to the root of the difficulties in understanding, and in being understood. 

I plan to cover topics including but not limited to:

-       The path from emotion to expression

-       Demands vs Offers

-       Winning vs Gaining

-       Debate vs Discourse

-       Gauging success by learning

-       Knowing your audience AND your platform

-       The need for perspective

-       Evaluating and granting power

-       The importance of preserving opposition

 If you have a desire to be a better communicator, or if you simply want to feel less stress from the information age that has encompassed us all, please join me as I offer some answers.  Please share this with anyone you think might value to opportunity to learn to add more value to interactions with others.