Walked Gainesville's Depot Parkrun 5K This Morning

This morning the weather was clear, humid and in the upper fifties when Melissa drove us down to Depot Park, just a few blocks south of downtown Gainesville, to participate in the weekly Depot Parkrun 5K.  The good people who run this event emphasize participation over competition, and in my condition, at age 69 with a serious medical situation to contend with, just showing up and taking part is a noble project.  The bird were very, very noisy: lots of crows, grackles and red-wing blackbirds sending out their special, sweet songs.  We decided at the start to walk at a moderate-but reasonable pace.  But this didn't keep the volunteer tail-walker from rushing up and trying to force conversation upon us with aggressively personal questions.  I quickly picked up on this tactic, but sometimes others don't and I think some private medical information about myself was openly divulged...and without my permission.  Anyway, we eventually shook off that dude and did our walk.  At the finish, my time was 1 hour ten minutes three seconds...close to last but not quite.  You can view today's results by clicking HERE.  This time around they got the times correct, and they did credit me with my overall 93rd Parkrun finsish.  This coming Thanksgiving morning on Thursday Depot Park is hosting a special Parkrun, bringing in folks from the West End Community Parkrun area.  I'm looking forward to it...

Language Acquisition Through Conversation: I'm Working On It

Here in Gainesville...and in many other locations, I hear...is an informal group called Language Exchange Party.  They meet the first and third Fridays of the month at 7 PM, at a restaurant that borders on Depot Park, the place I do my (more or less) weekly runs and walks.  I've known of them ever since the start of the year as I was looking for some venue in which to practice the foreign languages I'm studying, but had to first deal with my own medical issue.  I was thinking about going there this evening but decided to pass on it, college graduation going on and all...we'll see how it goes a couple of weeks from now.  Their group is free and, like I said, informal.  They say that, upon entering the place, you select stickers representing both your best languages and those you are pursuing, enabling everybody to sort through the crowd to find suitable conversation partners.  I would don stickers representing English, Russian, Spanish and Chinese, preparing myself to spend much of the time with my first language as I converse with others learning it.  I have some strategies with Russian, Spanish and Chinese for engaging in conversation as well, both relating to how children pick up their first language.  One is to use stream-of-consciousness speaking, casually connecting words and phrases that at least approximate the meaning of what I'm trying to convey without obsessing on "perfect" grammar or word selection.  Another is to copy my brilliant niece Melanie who, when she was just 20 months old, would go around everywhere and point to just about anything that captured her attention, loudly and clearly naming it...that vacation trip in June, 1981 was unforgettable.  With the latter, I think adults who are studying new languages tend to lag behind with naming things and probably focus too much on just grammar and general vocabulary and phrases.  In any event, I plan to try out my "experiments" in language acquisition some time starting in May: stay tuned...

Quote of the Week...from Max Ehrmann

Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even to the dull and the ignorant; they too have their story.                                 ---Max Ehrmann

Max Ehrmann's prose poem Desiderata has always been a favorite of mine since I first heard it on the Les Crane singles hit played on the radio more than fifty years ago.  Ehrmann wrote it in 1927, and I've quote lines from it in past articles...including last Friday's.  As for the above excerpt, I have been reflecting on different types of positive, effective dialogue and have broken it all down to four: 

1: I speak about what I want to the other party.

2: The other party speaks about what they want to me.

3: They talk to me about what I want them to.

4: I talk to them about what they want me to.

Note that none of the above necessarily implies that the two of us in dialogue will agree on the content of what is said, but rather that it's the choice of subject matter...spoken with tact and discretion...that can, in my opinion, lead to successful dialogues.  Now the best of dialogues will combine all four elements, but I don't think that's always called for.  Yet over the course of a relationship all four elements need their proper expression and a sense of respectful balance...what do you think?

Quote of the Week...from Yogi Berra

It was impossible to get a conversation going...everyone was talking too much.           ---Yogi Berra

Yogi Berra was the great Hall of Fame catcher for the New York Yankees, known for his many funny sayings that seem to contradict themselves...with the above quote this seems to be an example, at least on the surface.  For it would seem that this is what a conversation is...people talking to each other, right?  The other day my TV unexpectedly found itself tuned in to the Dr. Phil show and, as usual, he was doing his best to manipulate the emotions of his viewers by having on guests with diametrically opposed views on a hot-button issue.  They never did have what I would normally call a conversation, that is the two sides patiently alternating between listening to the other and speaking.  No, each side had their own rock-hard position, and they not only would refuse to consider the other's viewpoint but also seemed determined to prevent it from being expressed, with continual interruptions as it all degenerated into a shouting match...of course with the "good" doctor playing the phony role of neutral intermediary when he in fact was the one who instigated it all.  But you don't have to be on a reality/exploitation show to see that folks in general have problems with simple conversation, rarely ever changing their views on anything and viewing such a change as a sign of personal weakness with their standing in relation to the other side in jeopardy of diminishing.  Conversation isn't just talking...it's also listening, and doing so in an empathetic way so that although the speaker might not say everything you agree with, you can at least see where they're coming from and demonstrate this in your reply instead of "doubling down", a trend that is sadly on the rise...

Quote of the Week...from Paul Simon

There are two sorts of people in the world: Those who listen and those who are thinking about what they are going to say next.                                                     ---Paul Simon

Over the years I've generally liked Paul Simon's music...especially when he was collaborating with Art Garfunkel earlier on.  Let's see, my favorite songs from them are Scarborough Fair, Fakin' It, I am a Rock, America, The Boxer and Cecilia.  With Paul Simon as solo artist, I liked his Duncan and Boy in the Bubble above the rest.  The above quote of his doesn't really have anything to do with music per se...it's more about folks in conversation or in small group settings.  From my experiences and perspective, it all comes down to the felt expectations within the situation.  Within the context of the conversations or group discussions, am I expected to be an active, talking participant? This is especially relevant in small groups where they go around a circle to focus on each person...groan, you can bet that I'm thinking of what I'm going to say before my "turn" in these scenarios instead of listening to others!  With any situation, listening is a skill that must be learned. And sometimes taking a little time before one speaks his or her mind to the other can go a long way to understanding more deeply the thoughts behind what is being said. Listening empathetically doesn't mean that I agree with what you're saying, but rather that I esteem you enough to want to understand the full message and intent behind it...and also implicitly invite you to show me the same level of respect when I am talking.  And sometimes, when the opportunity within a discussion does arise for me to speak, it might behoove me more to repeat and clarify what I had just heard...just to make sure I got it right...before I sound off about my own reactions...

Podcaster Gives Suggestions for Better Communication

On a recent Mindset Mentor podcast, personal development coach Rob Dial approached the subject of effective communications, which incidentally turned out to be the title of an English class I took in my senior year of high school.  Except that back then the teacher...as was overwhelmingly the case during that time...didn't really teach anything.  Dial, on the other hand, has broken the subject down to interpersonal interaction...usually on a conversational level...with three key elements to his presentation.  They form the acronym L-U-V, coined by psychologist Karol Kumpfer: listen, understand, validate.  This in itself wouldn't be of much help to me, but Dial expands upon them.  With "listen", he decries the way most exchanges go, with silence beyond a brief pause something awkward and to be avoided, and the two sides often thinking more about what they're going to say next than actually picking up what the other is saying.  Instead, Dial suggests that the listener give the speaker his or her undivided attention and, whenever a pause happens, count "one Mississippi" to three before speaking.  This gives the other a chance to continue, often going into a deeper and more meaningful mode of expression. Listen without judgments, and with empathy toward the speaker...for we all have different life experiences leading to where we are today.  With "understand", the idea is to convey that through one's expressions, head nodding, "uh-huh" type cues, and so on, that the speaker is understood (I'm already pretty good with this).  And "validate" is to let the speaker know that you are not there to "fix" them and render judgment, but instead that you are interested in their viewpoint, asking follow-up questions to express that interest and their worthiness as a speaker.  Dial noted that many families have this problem where parents tend to listen to their children with the aim of "fixing" any perceived problems...leading to the kids clamming up and becoming secretive (that was the case with me when I was growing up).  I think all these suggestions are valuable as long as I am focused on communicating in a proactive way...but that's only half of the formula as I see it.  I think all of what Rob Dial presented would be self-evident if I myself, as a speaker, had over the course of my formative years regularly experienced conversations in which the other attentively listened without judgment or interruption and affirmed the worth of my opinion or narrative, not seeing my message as a problem that they were supposed to fix or a challenge that they needed to put down.  The spiritual saying "Do unto others as you would have them to unto you" is the proactive path, but most folks actually learn to "Do unto others as they do unto you"...

The Burden of Relevancy in Academic Conversation

I have a daydream fantasy, one that I believe few others have.  It goes like this: along with all the inane radio talk shows hosted by political extremists, self-proclaimed experts on money or the law, paranormal promoters, and sports know-it-alls there is one program in which the host, a master of informed questioning, has as guests people who are knowledgeable and competent in diverse academic fields, ranging from medicine to physics to language to mathematics to agriculture to mechanics to economics...or anything else. In each interview they spend the allotted time exploring the actual content of the field for discussion, not necessarily its applications or implications to society or the guest's life history. Now I know this is just cognitive reverie on my part, but what if I were to become like that host and ask those around me about their own fields of expertise?  My guess is that they would mostly be reticent about sharing many details of their specialized knowledge, trying to steer the conversation toward their own life narrative or what career achievements they have won...and question my own rationale in asking them in the first place.  And simple curiosity and a desire to learn new things just don't sound like good enough reasons...there has to be demonstrated relevancy to push the topic forward.  On the other hand, since I haven't tried this how do I know that would happen? I do know that there is an increasing gulf in society between those "in the know" about science and technology and the bulk of the population, which at best takes it all for granted and at worst outright rejects science and advanced learning in favor of nonsensical notions...

Quote of the Week...from Mark Twain

Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. 
                                                                      ---Mark Twain.

This quote indirectly came to me from a friend's post on Facebook as he related his workplace experience arguing some points with someone...somebody else showed him a paraphrase of Twain's above quote. Actually, the great American author may have derived his own saying from a Proverbs verse...more on that and its interesting accompanying verse later.  First of all, I don't think anyone is completely a fool...each of us has areas in our lives in which we behave foolishly or entertain foolish thoughts. But the quote pertains when someone we encounter is in the midst of their particular foolishness...the temptation to react and correct them can be overwhelming.  But if their beliefs are irrationally and/or emotionally based and, after a bit of back-and-forth exchange with them, it is obvious that nothing positive is coming out of the discussion, it is better to politely step back out of it without trying to hammer your own points onto the other.  Else, as Twain said, onlookers may not be able to discern who is the greater fool...

As to the verses found in the Old Testament book of Proverbs, we look in Chapter 26, first at Verse 4: Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him.  Good, that seems to reflect the sentiment of this article, doesn't it?  But wait...read on what it says in Verse 5: Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.  So the Bible seems to be giving us a choice: which is more important, not looking like a fool to others or convincing another of his own error?  I say it's okay to express my disagreement with someone by expressing my case as being my own sentiments, not making it all sound like some kind of immutable universal law that must be obeyed and believed, and then change the subject or walk away. That way, I've at least planted a seed in his or her mind as well as those of any onlookers.  By the way, graciously letting the "fool" have the last word is a good idea as well, although for a lot of us that may be pretty difficult...