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"...

Quote of the Week...from Patricia Highsmith

My imagination functions much better when I don't have to speak to people.    ---Patricia Highsmith

Patricia Highsmith (1921-95) was a renowned novelist whose most famous work was her 1950 Strangers on a Train, which Alfred Hitchcock made into a hit movie.  I haven't yet read any of her works...although I plan to...but the above quote of hers resonated with me.  It's not only my imagination that suffers in torturous social situations in which I'm expected to play an active role, but my entire thought processes as well...I'm tempted to simply shut myself down and passively sink into the background: not because I feel the slightest bit of inferiority among others but rather simply because this is how I'm wired...and always have been.  I'm not a recluse in that I want to avoid other people...this shutdown of social commerce because of COVID-19 has demonstrated that to me as I miss public places like the library and Starbucks.  I've been told recently that extroverts tend to do their thinking aloud, through talking to others...while introverts prefer solitude for theirs.  Highly interactive social situations energize extroverts...they thoroughly deplete me.  All throughout my school years extroverts were held up as the great achievers while introverts were at best ignored and at worst bullied and put down...I haven't seen much improvement with this picture in subsequent years.  If this all sounds like I have a chip of sorts on my shoulder, you're right...I do.  I tend to associate loud, big-talkers with heavy-handed aggression who stupidly assume that I am somehow weak and need to be submissive because I'm not inclined toward that style of behavior.  I took a mandatory public speaking class in the eleventh grade and was browbeaten to get up repeatedly in front of a classroom that contained many people I disliked and who disliked me and with whom I had absolutely nothing I felt like sharing anything with, although I had many diverse interests of my own.  The school's message was that speech is power...and if you're going to be a "successful" person you'd better get adept at the art of running your mouth off, the more aggressively the better.  But you know, if I have something I want to say to somebody, I'll say it...no problem. But being put in situations where I have to speak things that I don't want to speak to people that I don't want to speak to: forget it...

Quote of the Week...from Shelley Moore Capito

Being a good listener is more than just being quiet.  It's reflecting back on what you're hearing.  It's processing the information to formulate a question, a comment or a speech.
                                                                         Shelley Moore Capito

When Shelley Moore Capito, then a Republican representative from West Virginia, won her U.S. Senate race in that state following the retirement of Jay Rockefeller, it marked the first time since 1942 that her party had won a Senate seat in that state...as a matter of fact Rockefeller, originally a Republican in line with the rest of his political family, had switched to the Democratic Party because it was so dominant there.  Well, times have changed and West Virginia's voters have tended to vote for Republicans of late.  Capito was on the 17-member committee to work out a compromise border security funding bill just recently that kept the federal government from again shutting down.  She is known in the Senate as a likeable colleague who, although true to her conservative principles, works well with members of both parties and is known to try to see things from others' points of view.  On the Senate floor she is one of the more eloquent, informed speakers: Capito's oratory is meant to educate and persuade, not demean and divide.   You might infer from all this that I happen to admire her, and you would be right.  I think she would make an excellent Republican president...

The above quote is simply an explanation of Shelley Moore Capito's own pragmatic philosophy...listening doesn't mean you are weak or are in agreement with who's speaking, but rather that you want to learn as much about an issue from all of its angles and arguments.  When there is agreement, capitalize on it and when there isn't, then either stick to your guns if it is a high priority or find a trade-off somewhere where both sides can come away with something.  It is people like her that make things work in our elected government, not the brash attention-grabbing grandstanders with their obstruction, taunting accusations, insults, and weaponized political correctness...

Trump's State of the Union Address and Commentary

Over the span of this blog, I have laid out from time to time my political orientation, which is issues-specific but weighted by how I perceive those issues affect me and my family.  I also believe that the primary Constitutional duty of the president and the executive branch is to provide for the national defense.  Now I realize, both in social media, television, radio, and the print media, the political discussion tends to be binary in nature, with the same people generally going straight down the line on either the "conservative/Republican" side or that of the "liberal-progressive/Democratic".  With the election of the current occupant of the White House, the polarization has taken on a much more personal slant as this individual seems to welcome confrontation and offense while regularly dishing out insults to anyone wounding his hyper-inflated pride and then wondering why so many people hate him.  However, I must in all fairness rise to Donald Trump's defense...so if what I'm about to say offends your political sensibilities, you'd probably better just stick to the channel or website that preaches to your chorus...

I was at work recently when President Trump delivered his first State of the Union address before a joint session of Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court justices.  I listened to the whole thing on the radio...which in itself was a feat since it lasted so long.  A funny thing happened while I was listening to him: I found myself nodding my head in agreement.  On this issue and that...interspersed with call-outs to special audience guests Trump wanted to honor...I thought that the president was spot-on with his delivery and themes: yes, I thought he hit the proverbial ball out of the park.  And then I went home and watched replays and reactions on TV...

With the replays, I instantly became irritated with the smug, smirking Vice-President Pence and the even worse Speaker of the House Ryan sitting behind Trump...and then I looked at the president himself.  Donald Trump, while saying all the great things that I earlier had agreed with without seeing him, looked like he was seething with hostility and aggression, and he had all of those irritating mannerisms as well...especially his patronizing hand gestures.  I suddenly felt like hurling something into the TV to make it all go away...reason won out, though, and I switched the channel.  I also viewed how people on TV reacted to his speech and was flabbergasted to hear it depicted as racist...come again? 

Early in his address, the president had the apparent gall to say that "Americans are dreamers, too".  I didn't take it as refuting the case for the children of undocumented immigrants being given the chance to stay in the country and be able to work (which I and most Americans support), but rather to bring everyone together...to acknowledge that we all have our own aspirations and that he was working on behalf of all of us.  But apparently, some white supremacist had already used that line and so that, in the eyes of some on the left, made Trump's statement racist.  He was also trashed for upholding the virtues of standing for the pledge of allegiance to the flag...something that has been a long-standing tradition in this country.  His critics angrily took him to task for that comment as a backhanded criticism of some NFL players' protests against what they perceive to be racial profiling and brutality by police.  But regardless where one stands on the Dreamers and the NFL protests, the president's presentation in his speech was dignified and inclusive. These were just two instances where Trump was excoriated by his critics; there were more as well.  The problem, of course, is that our 45th president tends to make statements, both in extemporaneous speech and on Twitter, that give fuel to his political adversaries...as well as a couple of his executive orders that took effect immediately and gave those directly affected little to no time to adjust...

It's tough enough for someone like me who voted against Trump in 2016 to have him as my president.  It's even worse when I find myself agreeing with his stance on certain issues...especially those on national defense, border security, and immigration...and then get frustrated when he undermines his own positions by making asinine impromptu comments and pointless Twitter postings (e.g. ban on Muslims entering U.S., "s---hole" countries).  Well, maybe I'm not defending him quite as much as I though I would.  And I'm getting tired of hearing people like Democratic Senator Dick Durbin get up there and condescendingly equate illegal immigration with the legal process that he himself benefited from through his own family line coming here many years ago.  The president's proposal does not turn our country's back on immigration but rather returns it to the legitimate process and more in favor of the frustrated folks who obeyed the law and are stuck on those long waiting lists, as Republican Senator John Cornyn pointed out a few days ago in a rebuttal to Durbin's speech...

Quote of the Week...from Ursula K. Le Guin

There are no right answers to wrong questions.            ---Ursula K. Le Guin

Fantasy and science fiction writer Ursula K. Le Guin passed away this past Monday at the age of 88.  It seems like there have been more deaths lately than usual...it's most likely because they are of people like Sue Grafton, Ray Thomas...and now Le Guin...all of whom I have come to respect and admire for their imagination and skill at their chosen crafts.  I did read the first three books of Le Guin's Earthsea series back in September of '16 as well as enjoying the '70s television adaption of her novel The Lathe of Heaven...you can explore this blog's archives to read my reactions to Earthsea.  But now it's about the above quote of hers...

The simpler the quote, the more difficult it often is to pinpoint exactly what the individual meant when he or she presented it...and this is a pretty brief one.  I can only offer my own interpretation, which is that most people really aren't disciplined or trained enough to consistently ask questions that aren't either loaded with embedded assumptions and biases or are so vague and general that any answer is necessarily going to be meaningless.  An example of this was the poor journalism practiced when a reporter yelled at President Trump while he was before them, "Are you a racist?"  Whether or not you agree with the assumption embedded within the question...that Trump just might be a racist...posing that question to him in those circumstances was a statement in itself besides being too general, any answer from the president only of secondary importance...so he was right to ignore it.  So what constitutes a "right" question?  If you are trying to collect an informed answer from someone, your question needs to be specific and if there are any assumptions underlying it, you should be candid enough to preface your question with that acknowledgment...simply stating beforehand "Assuming that..." will do in most cases.  After all, by questioning and answering we're supposed to be engaging in communication...and people have their own different values and understandings about what certain words and expressions mean to them...

I have been watching the C-Span channels of late and am usually pleased with the informed way that senators or representatives question people at hearings.  Usually.  When the person being grilled is an official already in office and there is a set subject up for discussion, the quality of questioning is refreshing...and I walk away from the experience feeling that I have learned something.  However, when the hearing is for a nominee by the president, the questions tend to disintegrate into softballs by the president's own party members and loaded questions by the opposition...leading to very little being accomplished.  Would that folks learn to discern better the difference between good and bad questioning and hold those responsible for them more accountable.  Y'know, maybe I'll start to collect instances of poor questioning I hear on TV and regularly lay them out on this blog...no one political party or belief system holds a monopoly on them and journalists who should know better are often the worst offenders...

Need to Learn Robert's Rules of Order

I regularly watch the televised proceedings of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate on C-Span1 and C-Span 2.  Sometimes, though, I get confused and lost as to what exactly they are talking about...tabling, reconsidering, quorum, objections...these and many other aspects of parliamentary-constructed meetings are obviously necessary, since they are used so much.  Yet I don't know all the ins-and-outs on when, how...and, most importantly...why they are used.  My own union local also uses the rules of order, and having started attending its bi-monthly meetings in September, I am similarly taken a little aback at how the proceedings flow there.  Supposedly, Robert's Rules of Order lay out everything one needs to know regarding how to conduct such meetings, and I feel it's about time I learned them.  Of course, sometimes in these assemblies the rules can get to be stretched or overlooked, and it's always good that the participants go into them with a spirit of comity, which is the attitude and expression of mutual courtesy and respect.  Sometimes this can be difficult with some folks by their nature, and also the degree of familiarity they might feel about those with whom they are attending.  I do know from watching the U.S. Senate for some sixteen years that it is possible to engage in some pretty passionate verbal combat on some issues while at the same time maintaining a sense of at least formally-expressed goodwill toward the opposing speaker, being deliberately generous with praise...and absolutely NO criticism or animosity on a personal level.  So order and civility go hand in hand in formal meetings, be they legislative, labor, or any other kind...it's probably a good idea to become well-trained in both...

Quote of the Week...from Abraham Lincoln

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
                                                          ---Abraham Lincoln.

Our sixteenth president produced a lot of sagacious and humorous one-liners like the above...I could have picked from several others as well.  But I picked this one because it has an almost universal application...although in this article I think it's prudent to just refer to myself...

Being someone who generally keeps to myself, many around me might think that I am reserved and careful about what I say when I do getting around to speaking.  But that's not what ol' Abe was talking about with his quote: one can be gregarious and loquacious and still practice wisdom regarding their choices of both timing and words when it comes to speaking with others.  As a matter of fact, the more practice, the better I imagine people would be at determining what works and what doesn't...so just because I don't usually speak a lot doesn't mean that I'm not liable to say something extraordinarily foolish when I do finally get around to opening up my mouth...

The art of civility, which the main character in a novel I'm currently reading has made a priority of practicing, involves a sometimes difficult balancing act, with the necessity at times to be openly assertive and frank on one side and the potentially negative consequences of doing this on the other.  Lincoln was in essence saying that, if you can't clearly conclude that speaking out on something is necessary and productive, then better to "remain silent and thought a fool" than to make things worse with your words.  I think most folks agree with this, although they...myself included...often do the opposite, unfortunately...