…an exploration to be used later as foundation of discussions on communication…
Good afternoon Francois!
Hi Frank, what have you been up to?
Oh, I’ve been improving my gardening skills…
You? Garden? Be serious.
I am! You see, I’ve learnt so many interesting things lately, and especially with the season slowly turning towards Spring, regeneration and new growth, I feel positively inspired.
Hey, I’m the gardener here. So do you mind if I test your knowledge a bit?
No, I don’t mind. Ask away.
Why do you have to pull up weeds?
I don’t have to, firstly. Some weeds are unsightly but actually useful, so I may choose not to pull up all weeds, but in general and according to expectations, weeds will take nourishment from the useful and beautiful plants – so if I want them to flourish I would weed the garden.
Wow! There I learnt something new. What is your favorite gardening activity?
I really like cultivating the soil – you know, fertilizing, airing, composting…
Gmph! I guess if you do that properly the rest of your gardening is easy.
Yes, but it depends. Some plants grow rampant and would have to be kept in check so that there is enough light and space for the others, and so that the aesthetics of the garden is maintained. Some people love wild gardens, but I can’t get it over my heart to give my favorite but less robust plants over to the whiles of the wild.
Then you must love pruning.
No, actually I don’t like it. Yes, it is necessary and I do it frequently, but I don’t like it. I also think doing it well and regularly is less effort on both my side and on the plant’s side. I’d rather pick off little bits with my small secateurs than have to lob off big branches with a hacksaw or an axe. I am not an axe man! I prefer knowing the limits and excesses of the plants I want to put in my garden and select them carefully –planning is so much better than pruning. I’m much happier if I can train plants to grow in certain ways, with the right kind of light and nourishment.
So if you select new plants for the garden you would not plant ones that would easily take over, no matter how beautiful they are…
It’s either that or I get a bigger garden.
OK, Frank – since you are not a person in flesh in blood, tell me, where is your garden?
My garden is all the behaviours of the people around me.
What? How so?
Well, like a real garden helps you to relax, reflect and re-create yourself, so the behaviours of the people around me energises me. And like you would do different things in your garden to create the feel of it, the aesthetics, that which pleases you, so I do different things to get people to respond with behaviours that nourishes and refreshes me – or create an environment in which I can be myself fully, to put it in another way.
So what you are telling me is that I am responsible for how other people behave towards me?
Yes, amongst a couple of other things, that is pretty well put. The meaning of our communication is the responses we get. Oh, by the way, remember that we also communicate with ourselves – kind of internally chat to ourselves… so we also generate intrapersonal meaning with self-talk. As a matter of fact, our self talk when someone else is talking with us is a pretty important ingredient of the meaning of the message.
So we may completely distort the message!?
Sure. It happens all the time.
It’s a wonder we understand each other at all!
We understand more than may meet the eye. We also understand on an unconscious level… We incessantly receive and send signals. Allow me to do a small experiment, please?
Go ahead.
For the next 60 seconds, don’t communicate. Don’t communicate anything at all. Mmmm, perhaps I must make it 2 minutes just to give you time to get used to the idea first and then not communicate. Ready?
Yep.
Go!
*two minutes pass*
Well done, you sat perfectly still and more or less expressionless for the last minute.
More or less?
Yes, more or less. Even your posture still communicated something, and there were moments, briefly, when subtle changes in your posture gave away small meanings. I don’t know for sure, but I am guessing that you were having a nice conversation with yourself there for two minutes…
*both laugh*
OK, I give up! It seems that you are telling me that humans cannot not communicate.
Yes, that’s pretty much it.
I want to disagree. How about when we are sleeping?
Interesting point. Some people would say that our dreams are messages, either from our own subconscious or from another realm. Others would say that they are just our nervous system’s way of ‘spooling’ information experienced during the past so many days and although a dream seems to be comprehensible, they are in fact pretty garbled. When we recall them again our minds produces a story line of sorts. Perhaps, if we expand the definition of what communication really is, then dreaming (processing) is still communication. But before we get to what communication is, tell me how do we communicate?
We talk, we gesture, we use facial expressions and body postures, we give off pheromones, or make sounds that can’t be said to be words. We sing, we write, we draw and show pictures… or if you want, we represent meanings in various symbolic forms (sounds, letters and pictures, movements, poses and to a lesser extent smells). One person is the sender of the meaning-construct in a message, and the other receives it, processes it and responds to it.
This ‘processing’ intrigues me. And the responses. Are they immediate and accurate?
Yes and no. On both accounts. They are immediate in that we give feedback on our understanding of the message, but we may also choose our responses later. Aaah, I see! If we sleep on something before we choose an appropriate response, we are processing unconsciously. And that is still part of the communication process. Neat.
Sure, but wait before you classify sorting information as communication… How accurate is our communication?
How accurately the message was shared depends on the receiver’s full comprehension of the message (little to no deletion, distortion and generalization – if that is possible). The ‘sender’ checks the response for appropriateness to his or her intent (intended message content and intent behind the message) with feedback mechanisms like elaborating and asking questions, and will provide more message (information plus meta-content) until he is sure the message is as accurate as possible.
That is a mouthful. So let me check if I understood you. There are no communication failures in respect of sending off the message according to one’s intent, but there are failures to feedback – a misunderstanding is a failure to ensure that the intended message was understood as it was meant.
That sounds right. If we make sure the message was understood as it was intended, we could expect responses that are more in line with what we wanted. Hey, I can see how that is like gardening. Your vision for the garden plus how the plants are growing tells you what gardening acts you need to perform… prune, fertilise, harvest, protect, weed, stake, water… and the intensity of these acts. Sometimes the garden would need a lot of water and sometimes only a little.
Absolutely. Now, as you said, like gardening activities there are specific communication acts and communication strategies.
Frank, if you are going to give me academic mumbo jumbo I’m outa here!
Relax. Let’s take that statement you just made… Would you agree that that is an assertion?
Sure.
If I interpret it correctly you meant: “I want you to understand me (and where I come from) and treat me as such.”
That’s more or less it – broadly speaking, yes.
I have a choice of how I will respond to your assertion. I can assert myself too or oppose your assertion, go along with what you asserted, or do something neutral. I responded to your assertion in a neutral way, but I could also say: “Sure, I won’t use academic language,” submitting my interaction to your criteria, or I could say: “Get a dictionary and keep up.”
Mmm… and then I would have a choice to do something neutral, contrary or accepting.
That’s right. We can either dance or start a battle of wills. My communication acts say one of four things:
“OK, I will listen and respond according to your assertions.” People submit or defer to assertions based on perceived superiority of other party (status, age, gender, race and so on, based on an internal value or stereotype), and or based on a cost benefit ‘calculation’.
Or – “OK, this is more or less what I had in mind too.” People may also go along with the assertion, affirming it, because for them it is already the direction they would have taken, so here they don’t submit to the assertion.
Or – “No, who are you to assert? I want you to understand me; my point of view is more/also valid.” Countering an assertion results in a power struggle; it is about who is superior to whom, and whose self interest is strongest.
Or – “I ignore your assertion. Let’s find common ground and go from there.” Not getting hooked will result in a better chance of bonding and both parties self interest being served.
Easy enough to grasp… If I understand what you said correctly, I can either go along with someone’s assertions by falling in behind or next to them, or I can resist it by opposing it either directly or in more subtle ways, or I can fall in next to the person but we change direction to suit both parties better.
Pretty good summary, yes! Now I am going to list a whole bunch of communication acts and you can decide for yourself whether the communication behavior is an act of surrender, affirmation, opposition, or collaboration.
Slowly, please.
Here we go:
- Insult, belittle, put down, criticize, ridicule, deride
- Discourage, dissuade, scare, daunt, depress
- Reprimand, scold, berate, discipline, chastise, admonish
- Smear, vilify, defame
- Complain, protest, whine, nag
- Curse (pronounce bad things to happen to…)
- Challenge, disagree, confront, dispute, contest, oppose, object, question
- Deceive, mislead, trick, betray
- Taunt, tease, mock
- Plead, entreat, beg, ask (to persuade…), request
- Boast, brag
- Confuse, confound, complicate
- Warn, advise, counsel
- Congratulate, applaud, praise
- Commiserate, sympathize, show compassion
- Divert, sidetrack
- Ignore, disregard, snub
- Blame, accuse, hold responsible or accountable
- Converse, discuss (shared point of view, sharing meaning; on a topic or free floating)
- Inform (purely to inform – if that really exists…), explain, enlighten
- Compliment, flatter
- Agree, affirm, concur, acquiesce
- Incite, motivate, encourage, cheer, support, praise
- Persuade, reason, negotiate, consult (presentation of information and ideas to change the listeners’ point of view (change beliefs!) and generate action
- Bless (pronounce and wish good things to happen)
- Decree, (say so shall it be), pronounce, state as fact
- Question (to gather information), interrogate, interview, ask
- Greet, welcome, salute
- Greet, welcome, salute
- Amuse, entertain, charm
- Promise, assure, guarantee
- Entrance, hypnotize, captivate, delight, enthrall, charm, fascinate
- Worship, pray, wish
- Educate, teach, coach (complex combination of some of the above)
- Consider, decide, reflect (internal process, weighing of facts and feelings, filtered against criteria…)
Phew! A bit heavy on the negative side… It looks like the secateurs, the axe, the nail in the tree trunk… and perhaps herbicide, or other ways to inhibit unwanted growth.
That may be so… I’ve not checked that every negative has an antonym, or whether there are really more negative acts than positive ones. What else did you notice?
The same acts, or some of them, can be done in an assertive, submissive, collaborative or neutral way, for starters… There also seems to be nuance differences, differences of intensity or meaning. I guess that would depend on the values and beliefs of the person experiencing the actor’s behavior.
Good insight! Interesting that submissive acts do not make the one accepting the assertions a weakling… To shape the garden it is a valid strategy equal to asserting. Imagine if you had only an axe to garden with… Now imagine that you have all the tools to support and nurture the plants in the garden around you. The rewards are so much richer if I have a full spectrum of acts at my disposal!
I see the point yes. That was quite insightful. I could never imagine that we do so much by just communicating!
It’s amazing, isn’t it? We will get back to this when one day we talk about behavior strategies… for now it is enough to say that some acts are more useful than others, and that some people are more resourceful than others with their communication acts.
Yes, I can imagine that there are people that can read the receiver of the message correctly and deliver the act to the best interest of both – prune when pruning must be done, but also feed and water.
Yep, it all depends on the communicator being in scarcity or abundance consciousness too. But let’s pick up the thread that seems to be emerging from what you just said: there must be a reason or reasons why humans communicate. What do you think, why do we share meaning in all the fascinating and many ways that we do?
Well, if I have to take a shot at it I would say we want to reduce uncertainty or cognitive dissonance; foster relationships; create and share meaning and so bond socially; or generate action (coerced versus agreed) to achieve some objective or benefit or interest. I also think we need to assert ourselves – our status, or ‘rightness’ of self concept or contexts of control. We also communicate to influence others’ perception of self (their or ours). We share information and meta-information (feelings, values and beliefs, attitudes, states) and I think this goes with interpersonal bonding. We also influence other people’s perception of information held in high regard (dogma, ideas, opinions etc) and this I think goes with social bonding. Ah, of course, we also submit ourselves to assertions or influencing, perhaps to fit in or to gain some kind of benefit or acceptance.
Now that is a mouthful! So if I’m getting you right it is about gaining something?
Yes, perhaps that is a good, but very broad, reason for why we communicate. Come to think of it, we either gain something or sacrifice something, or both… if I express myself I could gain something now or later. Or I can choose to express myself later, to gain something now or later. Or I can sacrifice myself now or later to gain something now or later.
Nice. I would say that those patterns of communication and behavior indicate a deeper reality, perhaps a belief system… So you are telling me that at the heart of all our communication there is one thing – to serve my self interest?
Yes, I think we aim to obtain good will (agreement, giving of some benefit) to promote ‘my interest’, or we aim to discourage actions, intentions or opinions against ‘my interest’.
What about ‘our interest’?
Ah, I see! The ‘my interest’ presupposition is a rather cynical view, isn’t it? Mmmm – let me play with this idea for a moment. If your interest serves my interest I would go along with what you assert… If your interest will diminish my interest I will oppose what you are asserting. And if we could create an interest which will serve both of us it is worth working together. But this is very rational. Something is missing. Why would I consent to take a course of action that is clearly against my self interest, acquiescing to someone else’s assertions?
Remember, all behavior has positive intent, and this intent may not always be rational, or rational from the outside. So let’s say that communication does have a rationale: conscious or unconscious ‘economic’ assessment of cost versus benefit of the responses to my communication acts, to maximize interest of self or of self + another, but never only of another. This can be both rational and irrational - where perceived benefits are not obvious, or unconscious.
I agree! Hey, did we just come up with that?
Yep. Nice work.
No, Frank, hang on. Communication strategies and acts and reasons are all good and well, but I’m missing something. Don’t we communicate differently in different settings? I mean we use different acts and perhaps change the communication acts themselves in different contexts. I can’t imagine that I would pay a compliment in exactly the same way in a formal, informal and intimate setting…
We have talked about different contexts earlier so yes, I think we can use them for communication too. There is the intrapersonal dimension – internal dialogue, thinking, processing – and if we apply meaning-making internally, this communication is about my self-concept. There is the interpersonal dimension where we relate to and stand in relation to others and here meaning-making is applied externally, but still to myself; this communication is about my relationships. Then the third dimension is the social dimension; we communicate about us, internal to some group or community, and meaning-making is about our common cultural attributes. The fourth context operate on the archetypical level – things that all cultures have in common, and here meaning-making is about humans – vast and vague but powerful patterns that tells us we are all connected in some patterned way. Then I want to add a context. We may find ourselves not bonding to another individual, group or mankind in any given event. The event is more or less unique and short in duration, and perhaps we don’t expect any significant meaning from it, so meaning-making here has an open quality and meanings are not ‘preselected’ as in the others.
Frank, on a conscious level I don’t think most people will be aware of these contexts at play in any given situation…
Sure. Still, it is amazing that we automatically adjust our communication according to the different contexts. It makes communication a rich and varied phenomenon. How did we learn to do all of this!?
Well, learning is a-
Let’s leave learning for another time. Do you think there are any consistent rules for communication?
Not really… perhaps a set of principles, but of those I have no clue. Come on Frank, I’m sure you can come up with something.
Thanks for the vote of confidence. If I have to generate principles by quickly distilling everything we talked about so far, I’d say that the main principles shaping any communication act would be: Type of relationship, context or setting – there are different sets of rules depending on whether it is a personal or business relationship, or a formal or informal setting, and so on. Phase of the relationship or the time context – we talk differently to strangers than to old friends; communication develops as a relationship develop. For example, there are certain things about ourselves we only disclose to people we have had a long trusting relationship with. Cognitive dissonance and reducing uncertainty – we always aim to get external representations of information as close to the internal representations as possible. In other words to get what we see as close as possible to what we believe. To a certain degree we would also change internal representations to be closer to external representations, and then the next principle is strongly at play… Expectations – we apply criteria, values and beliefs about self, the other party, the information/message and the context.
Right. I’ll need some time to digest that. Now, we agree that some people are more resourceful than others when they communicate… What makes their communication so effective?
You saved the best question for last again, Francois. Well first and foremost I would say rapport is essential. Rapport means a shared physiological state, shared history (the five contexts), matched values, beliefs and attitudes, matched non-verbal language: tone of voice, posture, gestures and so on. Rapport takes uncertainty and dissonance away. The next thing I think is important is sharing a Common language. By this I mean not only dialect and meanings of words, but also meta-language (deep structure is visible to both parties – not assumed). Common language also takes uncertainty out of the way. Because abstract language may be very ambiguous, especially where the message receivers are not well versed in it, experiential language, metaphors and stories are much more powerful to reduce uncertainty. Then the last thing I think is important is congruence. If what the sender says (content of the message), feels, thinks (non-verbal cues) and does (actions) are in line, the message is trusted, and uncertainty and dissonance are dissolved. Mmmm – perhaps I should add another one – flexibility. A good communicator has the flexibility to adjust their communication acts appropriately to the context and the receiver of the message. The message is constructed in such a way that the receiver understands it easily and quickly, and that it ‘gels’ with the internal world of the receiver.
Frank, I am even more curious now! This was a marathon session.
Yep, indeed it was. Communication is fascinating. We have but scratched the surface… This is such a big part of what we as humans do every moment of the day that the topic is inexhaustible. We talked mostly about the externally observable behavior and very little about the internal processes that produce the behavior… that is another fascinating aspect of communication.
OK, save that for a next time, please.
Sure. And if you apply any of the things we talked about today in the world out there again, may you have great fun and may even more learnings come from that.
Thanks. First I need a rest.
Yes, good plan. So while you are sleeping your unconscious can sort and process all the learnings to become resourceful communication acts so that you are always known as a great person to be around.
OK, Frank, and may you, while you are exploring new frontiers of the human psyche, find things fascinating and fascinating things to bring back as stories and metaphors to metamorphose awareness into wisdom.
You’re catching on! Good night.
Good night, Frank.
____________________________________________________________________
References and relevant reading:
J. Allan Hobson, Dreaming, an introduction to the science of sleep, Oxford, 2003
Clare Graves, Journal of Humanistic Psychology, Fall 1970 – regarding Value Systems
No comments:
Post a Comment