Communication 101: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly

[WolfyOne]

Originally Posted by cybersuebee

I wonder how different the conversations would be if we ALL asked for clarification when we read a post, and came back to clarify when someone questioned ours? Wow! I wish that could become a habit for the site!

Some of actually do ask
And usually it's before the can of Whoop Ass comes out, lol

[suebee]

Originally Posted by WolfyOne

Some of actually do ask
And usually it's before the can of Whoop Ass comes out, lol

Yeah. I'm on a diet though. I can only handle Whoop Ass Lite.

[Medusa]

A question for folks:

Is understanding the responsibility of the person wanting to be heard or the responsibility of the person listening?

Thoughts?

[WolfyOne]

Originally Posted by Medusa

A question for folks:

Is understanding the responsibility of the person wanting to be heard or the responsibility of the person listening?

Thoughts?

Personally, I think it's a two way street
We are each responsible for our own actions
If I'm truly listening and I can't understand I should ask more questions
The same goes for the person wanting to be heard, if I'm that person,
I want to answer all your questions until you get me even if we're never on the same page over the discussion

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by WolfyOne

Personally, I think it's a two way street
We are each responsible for our own actions
If I'm truly listening and I can't understand I should ask more questions
The same goes for the person wanting to be heard, if I'm that person,
I want to answer all your questions until you get me even if we're never on the same page over the discussion

I'm with Wolfy on this one...
Too often I think misunderstandings/conflicts happen because each side of a discussion is so fixated on their point of view and how they want to express it that they aren't flexible or patient.
Sometimes it takes people a few tries to make their point, or to understand something they haven't considered, or potentially to change their point of view after hearing and considering new input.
I think both sides need to be willing to keep trying - without being aggressive or defensive or judgmental, etc. Just stay open and keep communicating....and be willing to keep asking questions, keep trying different ways to express what you think, and keep listening as well.

[Nat]

Originally Posted by Medusa

A question for folks:

Is understanding the responsibility of the person wanting to be heard or the responsibility of the person listening?

Thoughts?

I think this is a really compelling question. I think my answer is, "both and neither" and, "it depends."

I think it's human nature to want to be heard/understood by others - especially if one is invested in relationship with said others - and even more so if the non-understanding party is actively harming or promoting the harm of the party wanting to be understood.

I think it's also human nature to be more receptive when one feels heard, understood, accepted, respected and not too stressed out. Even under those circumstances, few people want to feel like they are being preached at or condescended to.

The burden of being understood is so great when it comes to populations outside of overculture expectations. I do think the privileged party in any circumstance has a greater responsibility to attempt to understand the dynamics of inequality, because the burden to teach and see understanding is too high for those who do not share a privilege. And ignorance when it comes to issues of equality leads directly to perpetuation of said inequality. Sometimes I think one of the biggest problems - in the U.S.? in the world? In humanity? - is that ignorance benefits the privileged while harming those who do not share the privilege. Because there is no apparent and strong loopback for most people's harmful behaviors associated with classism, racism, heterosexism, sexism, etc. - there is little to no incentive for most people to learn or change behaviors.

There's a saying: "When the student is ready, the master will come." We all have times in our lives when we have the opportunity to teach or to inform and we all have times in our lives when we have the opportunity to listen and learn. Often within a single conversation, all parties experience both roles. If you put the information out there, those who are ready and willing to receive it will do so, and those who aren't ready are not likely to be able to hear it at all.

If a person feels they have relevant information to share, I think the responsibility of that person is to share that information in a way that does not demean the intended audience. I don't think it does all that much good to repeat and repeat and repeat the same bit of information in the same way and expect the intended audience to become more receptive to it. Ideally, one could act as a sort of midwife to the intended audience's understanding - because new understanding really has to gestate within the person - but I think that takes more skill than most of us have.

As for the responsibility to listen: In this day and age, we are all bombarded with so much information that none of us can take it all in. I think it's a choice whether one has the time and inclination to hear another person, though if there are indications that one's actions or inactions are causing another person or group of people *harm*, there is a greater responsibility to learn or self-examine. If one is invested in the relationship, part of that investment is the willingness to do one's best to *hear* the other's perspective and to accept the limitations another person has to hearing.

People have to be in the right place to share information in a way where it has the best chance of being received, and people have to be in the right place to be receptive to hearing and/or understanding. *Even when all parties try their best, I think it's to be expected that much of that effort will inevitably fall into a sort of black hole. In fact, I think an effort-black-hole exists in every relationship - where a certain amount of effort is never recognized by the other party. It's like a tax for being in that relationship.

(My use of the word "relationship" in this post is not referring to romantic relationships, but to any relationship between two or more people - up to and including an entire community).

Outside of all that, there's also basic learning theories to consider. When a person is first exposed to new information, it's helpful if it's related to information they already know. People can't go from zero to sixty when learning, so if a person really wants to be heard and their intended audience is not *getting it*, I think it's unreasonable to become too frustrated with the intended audience. If you are really invested in having another person understand you, you have to be willing to meet them where they are, be willing to spell it out and be receptive to learning from them as well as sharing information with them.

Easier said than done, all that.

[Linus]

Originally Posted by Medusa

A question for folks:

Is understanding the responsibility of the person wanting to be heard or the responsibility of the person listening?

Thoughts?

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.

[Medusa]

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?

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by Medusa

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...

[Kobi]

I think one has to be careful when trying to categorize STYLES of communication into just 4 possibilities.

If it was that simple, humans would be a wee bit better at it.

Different people, different situations, different arenas evoke different responses from us. The style we choose to use may depend on a particular result we are trying to evoke; or our current state of being i.e. tired, sad,
angry; the role we are playing i.e. child, parent, employee etc. It is seldom a clear field of play in a nice air tight vacuum.

For example, someone might think I am communicating passively when actually I am really not in the mood to be engaged, or I am disinterested in the topic, or I am refusing to be baited, or I know the plumber can fix my broken hot water heater on a weekend and how I "play" this might influence if he charges me something reasonable or if I will have to take out a second mortgage.

Same holds true for the other styles. It is not necessarily reflecting what one might think.

I try and keep in mind that words can hurt, and to try and choose them carefully. I am not always successful.

I also try and remember to be aware of my own internal state and how this is affecting my reactions. It stops a lot of things from coming out of my mouth.

And, I find the most "dangerous" situations for me is in the "heat of the moment" - whether it be good heat or not so good heat. These times, I try and remember the day I was ranting and raving, pacing, gesturing, and swearing as any good Italian would do. My partner, at the time, sat on the couch peeling a banana.....very calmly, very deliberately and oh so so so slowly. I was mezmerized by her banana. It was a very calming thing to do, a bit erotic, and simply distracted me from whatever I was upset about.
The image never fails to calm me down and get me back on track.

Indirect communication sometimes is helpful with certain people. I try to interject humor when I am doing this. Helps if you understand my humor.

Direct communication is preferable with me. I can be extremely obtuse.

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by Medusa

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.

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.

[Medusa]

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.

[BullDog]

To extend June's example:

"I think Arizona is a racist state, and here's why"
"I don't think Arizona is a racist state, and here's why"

People saying, "I think Arizona is a racist state, and here's why."
They give their reasons and then people come in and say they are accusing every Arizonian of being a racist. To many of us this is not at all the case. People can either read the reasons why people feel that isn't the case or continue going round and round and saying yes you are accusing us of being racist.

My example:

I believe the United States is a racist country.

When I say that I am not saying every single American is a racist or that every single American supports everything that makes the country racist. I don't support racist policies, racist people, racist thoughts, culture, action, etc. However, unfortunately they do exist and unfortunately as a white person I do in many ways benefit from this being a racist country. I do feel I need to acknowledge this and do what I can to speak out and work against this rather than crying "don't call my country racist and it's not my fault anyway."

[Nat]

I don't think anybody on this site said all arizonans were racist or even that the state is full of racists. Did somebody say that?

[Linus]

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.

[Medusa]

Aside from the Arizona issue, because I'm speaking generally here, do we (the people on this site, the people we encounter, the humans on this earth) tend to ignore folks who say things like "ALL x, y, z group of people are X, Y, Z" when we are out in the real world more than when it happens on the Internet? Why or why not?

[Nat]

Originally Posted by Medusa

Aside from the Arizona issue, because I'm speaking generally here, do we (the people on this site, the people we encounter, the humans on this earth) tend to ignore folks who say things like "ALL x, y, z group of people are X, Y, Z" when we are out in the real world more than when it happens on the Internet? Why or why not?

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.

[Gemme]

Originally Posted by Medusa

A question for folks:

Is understanding the responsibility of the person wanting to be heard or the responsibility of the person listening?

Thoughts?

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.

Originally Posted by Medusa

Aside from the Arizona issue, because I'm speaking generally here, do we (the people on this site, the people we encounter, the humans on this earth) tend to ignore folks who say things like "ALL x, y, z group of people are X, Y, Z" when we are out in the real world more than when it happens on the Internet? Why or why not?

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.

[Just_G]

I emailed the Serenity now link to a friend of mine....because we have had discussions along this line before. She emailed me back and asked which type of communication she felt I used and what kind I thought she used.

When I messaged her back, I said I see myself as a passive communicator and her as an aggressive communicator. Shit hit the fan! I didn't say that ALL of the things that describe that type of communication described her, yet she proceeded to tell me that if she is ANY of the things on that list to me, that I don't need her in my life. WTF?!

She also proceeded to ask me which she was; verbally or physically abusive towards me. I said neither....that is not one of the things I thought fit her that was under the "aggressive communication" list.

Now, she is pissed and offended. I thought that sharing the link with her would be a great topic of conversation for us to engage in. Guess not.

I don't know if I should try to discuss this any more with her or just let it go and let her be pissed. This is one of those times when I feel like I should not have said anything, but then I would have been being passive instead of trying to discuss something I thought we could talk about without something like this happening.

[Isadora]

Both.

To me:

conversation is not pontification (ie AZ is evil and I have the moral (NOT ethical) obligation to point out to you exactly how they are evil and I am true and right.)

conversation is not sweeping declarations (AZ passed this law therefore all AZians whether they agree or disagree are part of the evil empire.)

conversation containing no is not a bad thing (AZ people who do not agree should move to Canada. No, I dun want to move to CA.)

conversation is an openess to listen and acknowledge understanding, not to necessarily agree (While I hear that AZ has laws that, to me, are abhorrent, you do not have to agree with me that we should boycott the state.)

Communication and conversation can be:

conveying information

small talk that bonds people to one another, but information exchange is not the priority

be bantering that includes inside jokes between people, humor that is personal and may seem at first inappropriate but banter is usually between people who know one another well

one way to communicate, but not the only way and in this forum we rarely aware of body language, or emotional language.

The other thing I always try to be aware of is that communication is cultural, effected by classism or country of origin or mental/emotional capabilities, etc. Autism, speech impediments, brain damage, menopause all effect how I communicate. For example, I am very aware that I have friends who do not understand or get sarcasm, so they just see it as hurtful or truth.

Like all things, being aware of how my words are "perceived" is important. Self awareness is important, too. I know my "firepoints" and while I don't ignore what sets me off, I am aware, as a grown up, that I may have bias, that I have a responsibility to THINK first and that I have the ethical (not moral) responsibility to communicate aware of my bias/prejudices and when I don't particularly like some one. Yes, liking or disliking people is a reality of life. Knowing that Papa Chris (just an example, giggle) pisses me off regularly, as an adult, I THINK through how I discuss differences or disagreements with him. Duh. Communication does take some common sense!

I think one of the things I work constantly to be aware of is that communication is "objective" impossible. In fact, I don't believe human beings can be impartial or objective at all. Everyone's ability to communicate is subjective to their experience, their emotional state, their physical or mental state and individual prejudices.

It is amazing, sometimes, with the all our differences that respectful discourse and communication is possible at all! Lol