I think the influence of post-modern thought has a lot to do with the elimination of generalizations like that. I think academics avoid this language more though the tendencies are filtering through the culture now. Gender and queer theory are really steeped in post-modern thought too - so I would guess our community tends to avoid this type of generalization more than average. There might be a certain amount of privilege difference between those who avoid "all people ____" statements and those who embrace them and I would guess there are generational differences too.

Both, just like it's the responsibility of both the pitcher and the catcher when striking out a player. Ideally, the parties would work in harmony to give and receive the message.

I think we do. We are fully ensconced in our lives when we are not here and the reality of our lives, complete with obligations, bears a heavier weight than someone throwing generalizations around. I feel it's easier to dismiss them or to let it go when there are 1001 things going on right at your own doorstep, demanding your attention.

When we are here, for many, it's an escape or release from the levity of our reality and so, for many, this becomes an alternate reality and the loads of relevance and importance shift.

Heh.. how ironic that I ran into this very issue today. I had a student who wanted to know if a product we has issue x, y and z that they would have to clean up after. It had puzzled me because I never thought of thought of it and had never seen it. So I said that I didn't quite understand and if he could explain. He went through a sample and I said no, I didn't think we did that. He was convinced that we should have a screen on it and that should be addressed in some fashion.

So I asked him again to clarify and as he went through another example, I kept saying no, that I didn't think we did that and that there was no screen that showed how to address that. He kept saying that it didn't make sense because that issue would have to be cleaned up and why didn't we have a way to address it (although I still wasn't clear as to what he was referring to). When I asked for one last time for clarification, he got frustrated and one of his colleagues explained it to me in a different manner. It was then that I understood and explained that we didn't do the process the same way.

Through this whole process it was as if we were speaking two languages (in essence we were). He assumed that the product worked one way (the way other manufacturers work) while I was only used to how my company does it. If he had said to start with that "this is the way that existing products we use do it", it would have triggered in my head that this is what he meant. At the same time, I should have realized he was referring to how other products work.

So as others have said, it's the responsibility of both to be active listeners and participants in the conversation and in trying to understand each other. Sometimes, when someone is asking for clarification, it may mean that how we explain something may need to be done in another fashion or using a very different analogy. We need to avoid the assumption that the person who is asking for clarification is doing it to frustrate us; it's often because they genuinely don't understand.

I'm kinda worn out but wanted to make a note here to further this line of discussion:

Direct v. Indirect Communication:

I am a huge fan of direct communication. Especially in areas of conflict. I feel like it does more to foster a healthy situation if the people having an issue (and it doesnt have to be an "issue", it could be something they disagree on, etc.) are open, honest, and authentic when talking about how they feel or what is bothering them.
I'm wondering, are there times when indirect communication is better? Im trying to think of examples and the only one I can come up with is perhaps a situation where someone is trying to save someone else's feelings.

I actually get pretty pissy when people use indirect communication with me and I'm not a fan of "silent treatments" or passive-aggressive postings on shared websites or telling everyone but me that you are having a problem with me.
I was reading some articles and found a pretty good breakdown about different styles of communication here:
http://serenityonlinetherapy.com/assertiveness.htm

According to this article, there are 4 types of communicators:
Passive, Aggressive, Passive-Aggressive, and Assertive

A lot of the examples felt pretty dead-on. Do each of these styles of communication have their own merits? Times when each style is appropriate?
Im trying to get out of my unilateral "Assertive is always best" thinking because I do think that there are times when you have to alter your communication style in order to be "heard".
Wondering if anyone had thoughts?

Hi Medusa, and thanks for the link.

I agree that direct and assertive is usually best...and it's something that I've been working on for years. Having grown up with a single narcissistic parent, I was trained to be passive (and a caretaker), and speaking up for myself was/is challenging. Since my childhood household was also full of anger, I "cope" with that by clamming up and shutting down...so aggressive communicators are hard for me to deal with as well.

I used to fall into passive/aggressive crap pretty frequently, because I really "couldn't" speak up and assert myself. After much work, I'm able to do that...and the passive/aggressive fell by the wayside...except when I'm faced with a hyper-aggressive personality. That's when I tend to fall back into that old dysfunctional pattern.

Since I now find passive/aggressive exceedingly yucky and destructive...I sometimes opt instead for purely passive. I won't fight. I won't engage. If I feel like someone absolutely will not listen to any other view...then I'm done and I shut down. Coupled with that though is a boundary that gets drawn in my head...and I tend to write them off as someone that I choose to ignore completely. The sucky part of that, though, is that I then lose all input from them...even when they aren't in hyper-aggressive mode, because I've drawn that line in my head. Basically, they get labelled "bully" and I stop listening.

I know that's not a great solution either...but I'm at a loss for a better one. I'd be very interested in knowing what others do in this situation, and how they approach it for a better outcome...

Hi, Medusa.

I tend to separate out communication styles from indirect or direct communication. Although, some communication styles involve indirect communication (passive and passive-aggressive).

In terms of communication styles, I tend to concur that assertive communication is always best in relationships. This is also direct communication.

The only place in my life where I may use indirect communication (but NOT a passive or passive-aggressive communication style) is in my work (I am a psychotherapist). If a client is very defensive about something or unable to see something in themselves that would be helpful to them, I may say something indirectly I hope will sort of "tuck into the back of their head" that they will may eventually access later. If I say it directly, they won't hear it, but if I say it indirectly (often more than once), they may actually come to it on their own. I think I may do this in my partner relationships as well, but it is less conscious. Anyway, I don't know if the above has an actual term to describe it, it is just something I noticed that I do.

My only other thought on this topic is that certainly when I know that a topic is sensitive to another I tread lightly in how I approach something, but I am still always direct.

So, I guess I am saying that in daily life, I can't see anything but direct, assertive communication being best, coupled with sensitivity when needed. As a side note, the sensitivity piece is something I struggle with in daily life.

ETA: For me, I can be too blunt at times (in daily life, not work), unless I am really clear that it is a sensitve topic for someone. I have worked on this forever. My entire family (including extended family) were very direct and blunt, so of course this is what I was taught. I also have to pay attention to "filtering"...sometimes I say all of my thoughts (not thinking about how they can impact someone) and that can be hurtful to others. I tend to be very cognitive and not realize that others would receive what I say from an emotional place.

The main place where this has been a challenge for me is in my partner relationships. I think that my friends tend to be more "thick skinned people", while my partners are not, so I find the problem happening there (partner relationships), more often. Hmmm...just realized that...something to think on...thanks.

Thanks Jo and Dapper!

Dapper - I think what you said about saying something indirectly and kind of "planting a seed" makes a lot of sense. I have done this myself in some situations and feel like it's a....maybe a "suggestive" form of communication.
I think that most evolved people know on some level when they aren't communicating in healthy ways and might choose to do so (or maybe not even "choose" but rather fall back on patterns that feel comfortable) for various reasons. I know for me, when I have felt threatened I will get defensive as a way to "wall myself off" from what I perceive to be an "attack" from the other person.
One of the ways I combat that behavior in myself is to remember how it feels when someone else does it to me and how it rarely furthers conversation.

Medusa -

Yes, "planting a seed" is the best way to describe it. I also love you terming it "suggestive communication" (or calling it a "suggestive form of communication", rather). That fits, perfectly!

Well, yeah. I think that Medusa was just posting one web site up for us to discuss. :)

There are lots of stuff out there, like this:

http://www.drbackman.com/communication-styles.htm

I do think what she posted is the most common descriptors when groups gather to discuss, "communication styles", however.

Very interesting website with info on ways to better communicate.........I did one of their study groups and it was really good and fit nicely with cognitive behavior therapy.

http://www.cnvc.org/

I appreciate the discussion on communication. Mostly, I appreciate the recognition that there are multiple styles. And, the unfortunate reality that not one style is suitable for every person.

Where I think that we need to exercise caution is in the manner in which we throw out the term "passive aggressive." This is a psychiatric term relating to a personality disorder. It has ranking within the DSM (currently IV) scales. What this means, like the past use of calling one's neighbor schizophrenic without having fully understood the dimensions of the disorder, calling people passive aggressive without having the tools (or the credentials), the objective observations can just serve to belittle behavior which one disagrees. I think we should be careful here.
For anyone with interest, the following link provides the criteria for the DIAGNOSIS of this disorder. Just reading it does not give the right to sling it around at random. There are nuances ..

http://www.ptypes.com/passive-aggpd.html

Just my $.02 worth and not meant to attack anyone who has used it ... merely a suggestion to reflect about how common the complex and complicated (and, dangerous if misused) commonly accepted practices become.

Hey, wax!

Just wanted to note that Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder was actually removed as a diagnosis from the DSM in the DSM IV version (published 1994, text version 2000). It was moved to Appendix B (for reference).

For me, using the term passive aggressive as it relates to communication styles is very different from someone have a Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder. One can communicate in a passive-aggressive way, but not meet the criteria for the old Passive - Aggressive Personality Disorder diagnosis.

So, when I say that someone is communicating in a passive-aggressive fashion, I am in no way saying that they have a personality disorder. I am merely speaking to their communication style.

Heard this today - liked it - thought it might apply to sone stuff here. It sure applies to me.

-----


How We Hold Our Thoughts

More important than the kind of thoughts we have
is how we hold thoughts,
how we relate to them:

in the way we're attached,
we cling,
we resist things,
the way we are pushed around by things,
troubled by things

have a lot to do with how we hold our thoughts and ideas.

We have
what's going on,
ideas of who we are

if we can learn to hold our way of thinking very lightly
then it's easier to have the experience of being porous
as opposed to having a wall
or something solid
that the world hits when it encounters us.

When someone says something
or does something
and it hits us -

if we're holding tightly to some idea,
holding tight to some concept,
some story,
some opinion,
some world of thinking -

then that tightness,
that holding,
is often the thing that the world encounters and strikes.

Sometimes it meets with hard resistence
and sometimes we get knocked over.
Sometimes if the holding is kind of tenuous,
we can feel vulnerable
because we're kind of holding,
we're kind of not,
we're kind of open,
we're kind of not.
We're not quite ready to let go,
but we're not quite holding on either.

It's nice to consider that there's another way to be -
to hold thoughts so lightly that you're porous.
If somebody says something
it's almost like it goes right through you.
It doesn't stick anywhere,
doesn't hit anything,
doesn't get stuck by anything,
there's no hooks inside us,
no buttons inside us that get pushed.

So the idea is to be porous
and let things come through and move out.
They can still have an impact,
we can still be emotionally moved by things,
but the emotional response is also moved through freely, openly.
We don't hold onto it.

It's important to look
at how you're holding your thoughts.
Are you riding them really close?
Are you giving them a lot of authority?
Do you believe your thoughts are who you really are?
Do you believe every thought you've believed?
Are you judging your thoughts a lot?
How do you relate to thoughts
and can you loosen the grip of thoughts?

Thoughts can come and go,
they can be good thoughts,
they can be bad thoughts,
but if we hold them lightly
then it's easier to be relaxed about what happens around us.

- Gil Fronsdal - Audio Dharma podcast

This is the primary challenge that I have in communicating with aggressive communicators...because, in my experience, they don't hear feedback as feedback and a topic for discussion...but as criticism or an attack that they must defend against.

I think Gemme's advice is good...and I hope it works for you.

For me, the longer I live, the more tired I am of tip-toeing around aggressive communicators while they are stomping all over me. I prefer to spend my time with those who will really have a discussion.

These days...I tend to say "I intended this as something we could talk about...not as an attack on you. When and if you want to talk...I'd be happy to." And then I walk away (physically and/or emotionally).

It isn't the best technique, I know...but at this point it's all I can do.

Best of luck. :rrose:

It sounds like you stumbled across a source of shame for her. If somebody told me I was an aggressive communicator, I would be all ears and want to know more. Or maybe she was being mean to you.

Hi Just G :)

Given that I don't know your friend or the history or the context or anything else about this conversation, please take this with a gigantic grain of salt.

However, what I see purely from what you've written is that you want to communicate....you're trying to get better at it...you're taking feedback, finding resources.

Her reaction sounds like she doesn't actually want to communicate...even though what she's doing is talking (or writing).

People use words for a whole lot of reasons....communication is one....control is another.

In my family of origin there was a whole lot of talking, and very little actual communication. Words were used to control, to wound, to keep people in their designated roles, etc. I'm really cautious around people who talk but rarely listen, or who can never be wrong. If someone can't say "wow...I didn't realize I was coming across that way"....then I tend to think they're talking for reasons other than communication.

Blade, I think this is really key. All of us come from a different history and context...when you say "buddy" you may mean a friend....when I say "buddy" you better look out. Small stuff, but important.

I think knowing where people come from is critical to really understanding them...especially if you're talking about emotionally charged stuff. Honestly, I've worked on communication (along with other issues) in counseling for years....and I still trip over it almost daily with Scoote....who is someone that I love dearly. If it's still that tricky with someone I love and live with...imagine how challenging it is when the relationship is more distant, or the communication is going out into the universe without benefit of body language and tone.

I just finished reading this piece by a SI sports writer: http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-21/o...?_s=PM:OPINION It's worthwhile to read, whether you like sports or not. It's about how anonymity on the Net (in this case Twitter) changes how people talk to others, especially those they disagree with.

Hi Just G :)

Not sure how I missed this post until today, but amen! This is exactly what I have done (and still do, and did again last night). And, your image of the log jam between mind and mouth is spot on....except for me the log jam is between heart and mind. I can keep talking....I just stop feeling. Once I start feeling intimidated, shut out, ignored or controlled....I stop being emotionally engaged. In a relationship, whether friendship or more intimate, that's deadly.

I totally hear you...and wish I had better answers. If you find some, please share them with me, okay?

I'm dealing with a situation right now in which I feel like a function rather than an appreciated person that counts...and it's killing the emotional connection in the process.

Here's what I'm facing...I'm told to say what I want, what I feel, what I think...and when I do the result is that I'm either ignored or showered with anger. If I don't say what I want/feel/think....then it's my fault that I don't get what I need. If I do say what I need....it doesn't happen anyway and I get the deluge of fury as well.

For me, this isn't about communication....it's about control. As long as I stay in my appointed role and don't express any needs or desires...then all is well. If I express unhappiness, need, insecurity, fear, hurt, dissatisfaction, frustration...anything that is difficult for the other to deal with...then it is suddenly all my fault. Meanwhile....the others in the situation are allowed to express their needs/wants and have them met.

I end up in the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation in which I cannot get my needs met, and I do not count. It's a trap....an emotional one rather than a physical one....but still a trap.

Here's the irony...all of that can be going on underneath a mantra of "you're my dearest friend" or "I love you" or "I'm saying this because I care about you" or "fill in the blank." But the subtext is "shut up about what you need/want/feel."

And...I do shut up. I also shut down.

I was listening to a podcast today and found it so interesting that I went ahead and transcribed it as best I could. The reason I'm pasting it here is because I think some of the issues we run into on the site may involve issues of the group mind vs the individual.

------------

Transcribed from Philosophy Bites podcast "Philip Pettit on Group Agency"

"I think of group agents as a subspecies of groups in general. There are groups - their members will have a property in common and so-on, but the feature that makes them a group agent is that they mimic an individual agent in how they behave.

If you take a small group like the three of us - suppose we constitute a group perhaps that meet every evening for a drink. Now in order to constitute a group agent, what would have to be the case that there is some goal or purpose that we together want to advance or further, and equally we form shared views about the best means to advance this goal, about the opportunities, about the sub-goals, about the order of importance, about the sub-goals - and of course we're going to form views about changing the goal, about adding to the goal. We've got to as a group, the three of us, organize ourselves in order to advance a purpose according to certain accounts of how best to advance that purpose. We've got to do together what we all do individually to pursue a goal.

Groups obviously vary enormously in size and enormously in structure. The three of us could be a group. We could develop some political purposes, for example, we're speaking on advancing the green agenda in Oxford. So that's the big goal we might agree on. We then would want sub-goals: what are the important aspects of the green agenda? Keeping the streets clean, keeping the waters clean? We've got to decide on all of these, and then with these things we've got to decide what do we do? Together we've got to agree on an agenda of what we do and a means of doing it, which is just what I as an individual would do if I decided on my own to pursue a green agenda.

There's quite a dominant tradition that says, look, it's just a fashion of speaking to talk about a group as an agent - they are just individual human beings who are agents and they coordinate their actions together. And at a certain level that's true, but it misses something very important, which is: When you ask, "What's the relationship between the goal of a group or the goal or beliefs or the the judgments of the group and the judgments of individuals?" People who take the view that groups are just individuals, they will always answer, "Well, the goals which the group holds - they just answer to the views held by the majority of the members."

When you begin to see what's wrong with that, you get an introduction as to why group agency is an interesting topic.

Let me serve it to you abstractly: Suppose the three of us are involved in having to make a set of judgments and decisions because we want to mimic an individual agent. As we agree, we have to put together our judgments on various matters and also our desires, self-preferences. Suppose for example we've got to put together our judgments on matters like the matter of whether P is the case and the matter of whether Q is the case. The issue is whether then the conjunction of P and Q is the case.

So, it comes to the matter of whether we as a group believe P, guys? Well, here beside me I have David and Nigel. Let's suppose that I think P is the case and David things P is the case, so that's the majority. So Nigel doesn't think P is the case, but that's okay - as a group we believe P.

Okay, then it comes to Q. We vote on Q. It turns out I think that Q also is the case as well as P. David this time rejects it - he doesn't think Q is the case. But you, Nigel, accept that Q is the case. Ah, majority ticked off Q - the group believes Q.

We believe P, we believe Q. Does the group believe P and Q? Ah. The majority rejects P and Q, because I'm the only one who believes P and Q. I believe both P and Q, so I believe P and Q. David doesn't, because he rejected Q. Nigel doesn't, because he rejected P. So as a group, if we follow majority voting, we're stuck with saying we believe P, Q, but reject P and Q. That's a real problem. If we behaved like that, we couldn't operate as a group.

There are many many examples of this. Actually, I became alerted myself to that particular paradox through some legal literature - what is called the doctrinal paradox. I gave it the name, "the discursive delimma," arguing there was a wider problem than you have in the legal case. Let's focus on that paradox - the discursive delimma. Here's an example of it:

Suppose the three of us make up the board of some organization, maybe it's a housing association. Someone comes to us with a complaint against the landlord which is that the heater in his room blew up and caused him great psychological damage or harm. He's brought a complaint against the landlord to us, and the three of us have to decide on that complaint. Imagine now that we have decided in the way courts would decide an issue like this - which is to say the landlord will indeed be liable, he'd be blameworthy, if he had a duty of care in this matter - looking after the heater - and indeed the tenant was actually harmed - he really was traumatized by the blowing up of the heater. If both of those are the case, then we think the landlord is liable or culpable and maybe there's some punishment due to him as a result.

The three of us have to make up our mind on these matters. The first issue - was the tenant traumatized? David and I might agree, like P. And Nigel might think no - but as a group we think yes, he was indeed traumatized by the incident.

Second question: Did the landlord have a duty of care for the heaters and looking after them or was it somebody else maybe in this housing association we're imagining? And let's suppose David thinks no, the landlord didn't have a duty of care, but Nigel thinks he did and I think he did. So again, Q - the landlord had a duty of care - we agree to that as a group.

But now it comes to the issue of do we agree that the landlord should be held culpable, blameworthy? But remember I'm the only one who thought P and Q - that the landlord had a duty of care and that this poor tenant was damaged. Each of you rejected one of those, so you're going to say no to that and I'm going to say yes. Now as a group we are being incoherent.

So as a group, we've got to avoid just forming the group view that answers by majoritarian methods to our individual views. If the three of us are going to behave as a group agent - that means we are going to mimic an individual which means as a group we are going to be capable of advancing purposes, sharing purposes, according to shared representation. We can now see in order to achieve that agency, we have to make sure that our representation of how things are and our purposes are actually consistent. What you've seen from this example is that you can't guarantee they'll be consistent if you just rely on majority voting within the group.

Christian List and I were happily able to establish a more general result which is that there is no simple way of starting with individuals and their views and then determining the group views by the majority vote or any other simple sort of aggregation of those individual views into a group view. You just can't do it.

It is tragic in this sense: it's called an impossibility result. It's impossible to ensure that the views of a group are coherent, that they are rational, that they stand together, that they are consistent - it's impossible to establish that kind of rationality, "collective rationality," let's call it - and at the same time establish another condition which you might call "individual responsiveness." In other words, have the group hold views that are responsible case by case to the views of the individuals.

If we're going to get our act together, say on the housing association example, what we have to do is decide NOT to go by majority views but on some issues to adopt a view as a group that the majority of us actually reject. That is called constructing, as it were, a group mind.

There's actually a very long tradition of recognizing that individual human beings can combine into units or groups which themselves can act like agents, having purposes, having representations, having means of changing these purposes and representations, and being pretty rational and coherent about doing all of that. Although interestingly by the standard history, the Romans and the Greeks for example didn't have that notion of a corporate entity. That suddenly happens in the Middle Ages to answer to realities like the guild or the town or the monastary or the monastic order or whatever. Groups which now have a real salience in this world. And as these groups become salient, the lawyers and the philosophers begin to talk precisely of the artificial person, the persona ficta, some understand it as a pretend person but many as an artificial person. Already in the 1300s there's a strong particularly legal group of people who are arguing that these corporate entities are persons in their own right and that they should be treated as persons, they've got standing in law like persons, they've got property, they have contracts, they can have a mind of their own.

Myself looking at those midieval thinkers, you sort of feel, gosh, they are thinking the same sort of things that I think. But then you move down to the 17th century for example and people like Thomas Hobbes, who begins to think about the State and the Commonwealth in precisely the same way, modeling it as he says "on the company of merchants." Hobbes does something that I think misleads other people for a long time - he suggests that what happens when you do get an incorporation of individuals is that they go by majority voting. That's endorsed also by Locke and by Rouseau when they equally talk about the Commonwealth as an incorporated agent.

They are wrong about that, but after Hobbes, there are two developments really. One development is in actual practice and the other development is in legal theory or philosophical theory.

The development in practice is in the 19th century - the rise of the commercial corporation. Remember that in the early 1700s, corporations were severely limited in English law as a result of the South Sea Bubble and the bad experience there. Things began to loosen up again only in the 1820s and from then on over the next 30 or 40 years, and the same thing happens in America. You get an amazing development in which commercial corporations become capable of more and more and more independence. So the corporation can be formed just by registering it, it can operate in any area within the domain of the legislation, it can change sphere of activity without going to parliament or back to the registry, and you get limited liability of course. And of course, corporations are allowed to own other corporations and to control other corporations, so you get the possibility of a whole biomass of corporate entities, which is what we've been experiencing over the last 200 years.

The conceptual development - very interesting things happen. One is that a preeminently german thinker Arthur Gilke? goes back to the medieval sources and develops a whole theory of corporate entities - churches and commercial corporations and political parties and states and so on - about how these corporate entities have got a life of their own, are "real persons" - a phrase used - and that becomes highly influential. Unfortunately as I think, that whole development, this new sort of interest, philosophical, theoretical interest in corporations, in corporate agents - that all gets held up because it becomes associated in the popular mind with fascism, because they talk the language of corporations, of corporate entities a lot and so in the fight against fascism, intellectual and otherwise, you get a cult of what comes to be called "individualism" which is taken mistakenly to commit us to thinking there are no such things as group agents. Frankly, I think we are only recovering in a way from that triumph mid-century of a line that said "there are no group agents, there are only individual agents." Of course there are group agents."