"...intention of the mind"

If there is anyone who had insight into the mechanics of good painting it was Leonardo Da Vinci. The mere fact he had "Mona Lisa" and "The Last Supper," two of the most famous art works in world history on his resume, is easily enough to establish his credentials. When painting a subject, Da Vinci said a good artist has two primary challenges: "man and the intention of the mind." The first, he noted, is easy in the sense it speaks to properly capturing the physical appearance of the subject. The second, however, is a different story. It involves properly interpreting the actions of the subject. What are they trying to communicate in their actions, including their expression?

This is the essence of what any of us face in striving to be a effective listener. A person, for instance, states emphatically that "I did not rob that bank." What could be more straightforward than that? The meaning of those five words is very clear. But in making such a declaration, what is behind it? In other words, is it a statement of truth? Is the speaker being honest? As one on the receiving end of the statement, how do they go about answering that question? As Da Vinci would say, how do receivers of that message determine the intention behind those words? This is where being an effective listener becomes rather tricky.

The expression on the speaker's face, the tone of their voice, our own base of knowledge, and other facts that may be known at the time are among the chief clues from which most of us draw in assessing the truthfulness of the initial statement. Sometimes that is easy and sometimes not. Bottom line: what is the intention of the speaker? Is it to tell the truth or is it to deceive? Making the proper or correct choice can be a guessing game. An accurate guess helps facilitate an act of communication. An incorrect guess can compromise that act. All this adds fuel to the reality that communication can be and often is difficult.

Wanted: Slow Thinkers

Take a person who is standing around doing nothing. Suddenly, unexpectedly, from out of nowhere another person appears out of nowhere and throws a baseball at our first person's head. If that first person were to either catch the ball or duck, then in all likelihood he would be praised for either being a fast thinker or having quick relaxes. Instead, however, if he reacted slowly and ended up getting bopped on the head, then the judgement would be he was slow thinking. In such a scenario, of course, it is much better - not to mention less painful - to be quick thinking. Contending with a speeding baseball requires nothing less than that.

Thinking case, in this instance as well as many others, often is instinctual. We react because our "gut"  tells us it is the proper course of action. The action we take is not necessarily based on painstaking research. It is not the result of deliberate consideration in which one weighs the pros and cons of various courses of action. Rather, it is the result of whatever information we can quickly access and then making a snap choice. There is nothing wrong with this, of course, other than the fact not all situations call for fast thinking. There are times when the opposite of that is actually the best way to go.

If you are thinking communicating effectively is one of them, then you deserve a high-five. Despite the fact, there is a kind of romance we associate with fast-thinking, the challenge of connecting with others is the best way to go. Determining ways in which another prefers to receive information, how they like to be addressed, what their top interests and/or concers might be, and even how they like conversing with others requires unsexy, unglamorous slow thinking. Just because one "thinks fast" does not necessarily make them smarter than those who think with greater deliberation. In some ways, it may even mean just the opposite.

Whitney Balliett

I always get a kick out of reading what I consider to be good writing, especially by a writer that is either new or unfamiliar to me. These days I am enjoying a journal of writings on jazz by the late Whitney Balliett. (He died in 2007 at the age of 80.) Balliett wrote hundreds of reviews and articles on jazz for The New Yorker. While I have long admired his insights and communication flare, wading through a collection of his work serves as a very nice reminder of just how strong he was with pen-in-hand.

"He nodded, and clapped his hands soundlessly." "The old Half-Note.....it's narrow, trestlelike bandstand, and it's lowering ceiling, a set in a German Expressionist movie." "Its irresistible and original characteristics seemed to imply endless spaces and crazy weather and the howdy openness of Southwesterners." "It was full of his usual devices - the slamming chords, the agitated staccato passages, the breathtaking arpeggios, the blizzard density - but it had two new qualities: lyricism and gentleness." Who writes like that? I am not sure anybody does these days. But Balliett sure did. As a former drummer, he took his love for music and made it sing with his writing. On top of that, he was enlightening.

Going back to the beginning of this entry, then, what is good writing to me? It is communication with flare, insight, good and useful information, heart, and thought. All these qualities jump out in the works of Balliett. Too bad he is no longer with us as effective communicators are always needed. Studs Terkel once called Balliett "one of our most trustworthy guides." In a literal sense, Balliett's work pertained to the subject of jazz. More broadly, however, he painted word pictures that inspired his followers to learn more about the complexities and layers of life itself. How I would love having even half of Balliett's great skills.

Macro, Micro Communication

Generally, when we hear the words "macro" and "micro," many of us associate them with the field of economics. Macro-economics, for instance, speaks to a general, large-scale overview of economic factors.  On the other hand, micro-economics refers more to an examination of single factors that pertain to economic matters. I believe those same terms can be applied to the field of communication. Nearly every day we all assess our own specific communication strategies through macro and micro lenses. The difference is the two terms are not used by communication scholars and professional practitioners all that often - if at all.

So, because or perhaps despite that, I would like take a few moments to apply each to how the practice and subject of communication is addressed. Macro-communication refers to looking at the act of interaction from a broad perspective. One entity communicates with another. Perhaps it does so in a way that is not smooth or even off-putting. Nevertheless, their message is understandable and received correctly. With that, scholars and practitioners examine the mechanics of the communication effort and assess how it may have been done more effectively or, at the least, differently. Such a step moves one into micro-communication.

Specifically, this involves the matter of individuals within an entity go about communicating with others within the same entity as well as outside. First, there is the obvious question of whether the communicating was effective or successful. Beyond that, the matter of specific strategies used becomes an important point of focus. Such a step is not unlike what economists do when they examine single policies put forth by individual bodies. This, then, is broadened into studying the efforts or actions of multiple entities. An initial conclusion here is that macro and micro communication scholars are not all that different from their peers in the field of economics.


 

Dialogue Versus Debate

Of the numerous forms of interaction, two of the most distinct are dialogue and debate. The former refers more to a cooperative exchange while the latter speaks more to defeating or overcoming what the other participate has to say. One is about working together while the other revolves around working against. Despite the differences, the two can and many times do lead to greater enlightenment and understanding. Because on various levels each of us engages in these forms of communicating almost daily, in the realm of communication both forms have a firm and permanent place. A world with neither dialogue nor debate us unimaginable.    

In a chapter in "The Warrior and the Pacifist," author Lisa Schirch outlines a specific set of differences between the two. In dialogue, she begins, there is a goal of understanding different perspectives. During the interaction, each participant accepts the experiences of the other as valid and real. Further, participants often at least give the impression they are open to changing their mind. Debate, however, is a very different matter. Participants here are opponents. As part of that, according to Schirch, emotions can and do run high as one side is constantly trying to prove how the other is wrong.  This kind of exchange can be intense while in dialogue, generally, all parties are more relaxed and feeling far less under attack.  

Can an exchange start out as a dialogue and  evolve into a debate? You bet. Perhaps one key characteristic of dialogues in that they can quickly evolve into a different form of communication and, at times, revert back to their original form. Ideally, however, there is no winner in the traditional sense at the end of a dialogue. Instead there are simply several folks who emerge with a deeper understanding of each other. Is one better form of communicating more appealing then the other? While I will leave that for others to decide, I will note each is vital to our ability and need to connect with others.

   

Darkness Into Lightness

Trying to assess folks in reference to how well they communicate and how they strive to communicate is always a challenge. Comments made over 25 years ago regarding the character of individuals are applicable to that challenge. It was during one of his peace walks in 1992 when the now-deceased Cambodian monk, Venerable Maha Ghosananda, observed there are four kinds of people in the world: "One in darkness who is headed for darkness, one in darkness who is headed for light, one in light who is headed for darkness, and one in light who is headed for light." The reference for this comment by the monk, a Nobel prize recipient, was "Tamonata Sutta."

I see a definite correlation between this observation and the manner in which many of us either strive to or do communicate in our day-to-day lives. Sadly, I see numerous incidences when people seem satisfied they were able to impart a particular message to others without regard to whether they actually communicated as well as they could have. (At times, I fall into this category.) Never mind that how they communicated their thoughts was punctuated by anger, impatience and perhaps even an insult or two. Doing emotional harm to another, at these times, is secondary to communicating a particularly perspective.  

Make no mistake, such communicating is darkness. Such darkness can be turned into light if the communicator recognizes their behavior and tries to apologize for it. Darkness remains darkness when the communicator takes no responsibility for their behavior. Every time we communicate represents an opportunity to do so with as much light as possible. Each of us should ask ourselves: How often do I succeed? How often to I fall short?  Moving toward the light and then remaining there is a challenge that, ideally, all of us should take. Because communication is so much apart of our lives, the least any of us can do is be the best we can at it.

Boy on the Floor

The other day I was walking through our neighborhood mall when I came across a scene that had caught the attention of a number of shoppers. A young boy, probably no more than three, was rolling around the walkway of the mall. His mother was just a few feet away watching him have what looked to be for him a fun and relaxing thing to do. Shoppers, myself included, were forced to walk around him. I have no idea how long his moment of bliss lasted, nor what, if anything, caused it to come to an end. I can only hope for the sake of the mother and other shoppers that whatever happened was without drama.

This little boy was doing his thing without regard for others (with his mother very much playing the role of enabler). Looking back on this very minor incident, I was and am reminded of times when people communicate the same way that boy behaved. Without regard for others. At times, people talk and do not give those around them a chance to respond or participate in what is little more than a mini-filibuster. All talking and no listening is not any more of a way of communicating effectively than that boy's behavior was a way of shopping. Nevertheless, I remain puzzled. One the one hand, I doubt any one would disagree with that. But on the other, I witness far more of that than I care to admit.    

One could characterize the act of speaking at rather than with as a blatant example of selfish communication. It illustrates an undeniable level of disrespect for others much in the same way as constantly keeping people waiting despite the fact a specific time to meet has been set. That boy's behavior can be excused due to a lack of maturity. But what excuse do adults who talk at others without even attempting to listen have? Besides being rude, it suggests a lack of full understanding as to what constitutes effective communication. This cannot be allowed to continue.

The Power of a Good Label

Ulysses S. Grant was the eighteenth president of the United States. Prior to that, he was the top general of the North in America's Civil War whose strategies on the battle field ensured that the nation remained "a perfect union." These two factoids alone make Grant one of the best known figures in U.S. history. But what is not known by many is that the name he is known by was not the name with which he was given as a new born. His actual name was Hiram Ulysses Grant. Grant felt very self-conscious about that, particularly after his acceptance into the West Point Academy. As many cadets were known by their initials, the last thing he wanted was to be called HUG.  

Grant decided to reverse the order of his first and middle names and therefore avoid what he figured would be non-stop jokes from his peers. Coincidently, just as he was being formally enrolled at West he discovered a clerk had mistakenly listed his middle name as "Simpson." In a quick decision, Grant then confirmed his full name as what he came to be known as throughout the U.S. and even much of the world. Beside this being an interesting story, I connect it to communication in that it represents how much a label or name of something can have. Would "HUG," for instance, have been so highly regarded by soldiers during the Civil War or by the American public after that terrible conflict? 

I do not think it is much of a stretch to note how much people seem to love good labels. Think of some of the more famous ones over the past 75 years or so: "New Deal," "The Great Society" and even, most recently, "Make America Great Again." We as a people seem to gravitate to them much in the same way a moth is attracted to bright lights. Often, once a phrase does catch on, it no longer seems to be matter its origin or even how credible it might be. Without question, labels can be and often are effective vehicles for communicating specific messages. Ideally, however, they should be built on firm ground and then fortified with tangible success.