"Instanicity"

As much as I have watched professional tennis over the years, I never cease to be awe-struck at the power of the players' serves and at how quickly the ball moves back and forth over the net. The fact that the players manage to return anything hit at them is equally amazing. (I know one thing that distinguishes professional athletes from the rest of us ordinary mortals is the fact they make what is so challenging to us seem easy. Still, even professional tennis appear to struggle with returning 95 mile-per-hour serves and cross-court returns. I confess to taking some comfort in that.) To says tennis is a rapid-fire game is a great understatement.

Thanks to today's technology, another rapid-fire game that virtually all of us play is communication. With the arrival of such communication tools as emails, tweets and text messages, we have the capability of creating and sending out a communique to multiple receivers at a moment's notice. In an article in the August, 2019, edition of "The Atlantic," author Jonathan Rauch raises the important question: Is this a good thing? Rauch writes, "Instanticity, if you will, is turning out to be a bug of online life and internet architecture, not a feature." He notes, early users of this technology assumed that faster must be better when it came to our ability to receive and send messages. He concludes this may not be the case. I agree.

There is something to be said for taking a step back and giving thought to new information or a comment from a friend or colleague before responding. While "shooting from the hip" may have a certain romantic appeal, using one's noggin before reacting impulsively is a wiser path to travel. A snap response is often misguided and requires some degree of back-pedaling. While using one's cognitive abilities may be slower, often times it protects us from misstatements and, more importantly, ourselves. Also, it helps us keep our relationships on rather than off-track.

"Team Truth"

Much these days has been written on falsehoods and lying. While that is not the most enjoyable of topics, it is certainly understandable since purposeful deception seems to be so prevalent in many public forums. As part of that, the impact that lying has on societies and individuals alike is very much at the forefront of public commentary and various conversations. As much as it pains me to give lying it's due, there is no doubt it can and does cast a giant shadow. This is particularly true in our age of social media and the Internet. Regretfully, I do not see that changing any time soon. Bottom line: lying will remain a powerful force.

That reality cannot be stated, however, without acknowledging another powerful entity: the truth. While it may not always make it out of the starting block as quickly as lying, truth for one thing is built for endurance. Lying is more like a sprinter while truth is built for long-distance. While lying may be back in the locker room congratulating itself on triggering misconception and ignorance, truth is still out on the track running lap after lap after lap. That is a good thing, of course, but such a reality does not guarantee greater enlightenment or wiser actions on the part of those on the receiving end of it. Despite its power, truth needs non-stop care and help.

Professional communicators have a major role to play here. They can be proponents and practitioners of it as they represent highly influential business, organizations and individuals throughout the world. Additionally, they can also sway the rest of us "regular folk" to be active members of "Team Truth" in our daily interactions with our peers. Collectively, this is no small thing. But it is also difficult because telling a lie is easy. Telling the truth requires patience, tact, knowledge and a level of articulation - either in writing or orally - that lying often does not. Rarely has there been a more important time to join "Team Truth." This applies equally to communication pros and amateurs.

Johnny Vander Meer

Only one player in the history of the sport has ever done it. My bold prediction is that will never change. I am talking baseball and, more specifically, Johnny Vander Meer. Those reading this right now might be wondering, "Huh?" Nothing to be embarrassed about. Let me solve your puzzle. Vander Meer was a so-so pitcher mainly in the 1930s in the National League. His great claim to fame is that in 1938 he is the only pitcher in baseball history to pitch two perfect, no-hitters back-to-back. This means over the course of those two games he retired 54 batters in a row. There were no walks and nor did any better get on base via a fielding error. For those two games, Vander Meer was literally perfect.

While most would agree this is a fun piece of information, I would be shocked if readers were not wondering what this has to do with communication. Let me try and connect the dots:  Vander Meer's feat revolves around the concept of perfection. In baseball, such a notion is clearly defined. Vander Meer met the criteria. In acts of communication, the so-called score board is much more fuzzy. Is an act of communication "perfect" when the sender of the message is able to put forth their point of view? Is the act of communication "perfect" when that message is adequately received and understood. Or is it "perfect" when the message elicits the kind of response the sender was seeking?

Wrestling with these questions showcases the notion that perfection as it applies to communication is far from clear-cut. One main reason for this is the fact that a "yes" response to any of the above questions could arguably be an acceptable measure as to whether an act of communication was, indeed, perfect. Does that then mean the idea of a perfect act of communication has multiple possibilities? Or would it be more logical to conclude communicating perfectly is not nearly as defined as, say, pitching back-to-back no-hitters?

Keeping Anticipation In-Check

There are few things that get our hearts pumping than anticipation. These days, for many, it may be upcoming debates between presidential candidates. For others, it may be the thought of a home-cooked meal. Whatever is the "thing" that dominates our thoughts in looking ahead, there is little doubt it is a time of  high internal activity. In fact, the anticipation can be so intense that it may even overshadow the actual event or activity to which we were looking forward. It can also enhance whatever enjoyment we derive from the event or activity depending upon what it is and how satisfying it is to us.

When it comes to communication, however, anticipation is not always a good thing, particularly if we are unable to keep it in-check. What do I mean by that? Let's say we have an upcoming meeting with our boss. Let us also say we do not know exactly what it is the boss wants to discuss. I have been in situations like that and can attest to the reality that there is little else that I think about. Does the boss want to see me because I have done something wrong? Or have they called me in to sing my praises? To say the least, such a discussion is one I am highly anticipating. As a result, I have gone into those situations with multiple things to begin talking about so as to give the appearance of being prepared.

The same has held true with similar, upcoming encounters I have had with friends or relatives. Giving into my anticipation, I have often begun talking about things that have no relation to what my spouse or cousin or daughter wants to discuss. The result is I have come across as being more interested in my own agenda then what is my "partner" in the conversation wanted to talk over. This paints me as being self-absorbed and insensitive. The best tool against such moments is to keep one's feeling of anticipation in-check all successful encounters are ones in which all participants are committed to two-way interactions

"Out Front"

Not long ago my wife and a friend of hers were talking on the phone and made plans to get together for lunch. My wife told the friend that she would meet her "out front." The friend, in response, said she that would be fine as she would be "out front" waiting. No problem, right? The time came for my wife to go meet her friend. She went to leave our house to pick up her friend at the friend's house only to open the door to find her friend waiting outside our house. My wife had the understanding that she would be picking up her friend at the friend's house. The friend had the understanding she was to come to our house.

This miscue was no big deal as everything worked out fine. The two had a nice laugh at the misunderstanding and then proceeded to have a nice time together. Both persons, I should note, are as nice as they are smart. Their conversation was very much on friendly terms, yet despite that they got their signals crossed. In making their plans, my wife knew what she meant and her friend knew what she meant. But the two did not know what the other meant. Each assumed what they were communicating was quite clear. Each was wrong. Fortunately, this scenario was quite innocent but imagine if something of great consequence had been at stake.

This incident illustrates just how complex communication can often be and how easily actions can be misdirected simply because people do not make the effort of ensuring mutual understanding. This kind of every day mishap happens to all of us. While one could argue it adds to the charm of being human, others - like me - could respond while being human certainly does have its advantages, it also means each of us needs to do a better job of ensuring what we are saying is clear and that what we are hearing corresponds what the sender of their message is trying to say. Even in everyday situations, without question communication is a challenge.

Moats

Remember moats? They are architectural designs you rarely see added to new houses or structures any more today. Of course, in their time, which began approximately one-thousand years ago, they used to be quite popular, particularly as applied to castles. Moats would be built around the castles as a way of helping make it more difficult for any invaders from invading or storming the place where the ruler and his or her people lived. They were also designed to make it harder for folks to leave the castle. On both accounts, the moats worked pretty well as they remain "in-style" throughout Asia, Europe and even Africa for hundreds of years.

While moats as we know them are not being built these days, they very much exist. When it comes to communication, moats are used by many. They are devices geared to protect all who communicate from criticism, debate or disagreement. One form of moats today is known as "small talk." Such interaction usually revolves around the weather or kids or traffic or an array of so-called safe topics on which everyone feels free to comment without fear of heated exchange. The result is interaction with little commitment. We interact with another without investing ourselves any more then is necessary.

I confess to being a small-talker on a regular basis. But this is a fact in which I take little pride. Moats as they apply to communication are little more than a charade, a shadow conversation in which the participants go through the motion of conversation without actually having one that comes close to having any meaning. To be fair, small-talk does have its place. At the same time, I am not a fan. Much like the moats of a thousand years ago, I do not think it would be a bad thing if we stopped relying upon them to protect ourselves from either making or attempting to make a genuine connection with another.

Shout-Out to "Mad"

To all my readers and, perhaps more accurately, non-readers, I have been on a bit of a hiatus from this blog. Yes, I missed it and, yes, it was nice taking a bit of a breather. Now, I am back. Over eleven-hundred blog entries and still counting. Not bad. Sadly, my return is a bit of a sad one as I wish to give a shout-out and appreciation to "Mad" magazine. This classic publication has been part of the American landscape for nearly seventy years. Recently, its publisher announced that the magazine will be ending its reign of wit, sarcasm, silliness, and lampooning shortly. I, for one, am not happy with this decision.

Could one say that I am now mad at "Mad" magazine? Perhaps. But more than that, I am grateful to the many smiles it has given me my entire life. (I "started" just a little before "Mad's" first edition hit the newsstands.) While I cannot say I read every issue of the magazine, I certainly read enough over the years to recognize it for the treasure it has been for almost seven decades. Being funny is not easy, especially on a consistent basis. But what the folks at "Mad" did, was take "funny" to a higher level by being clever, insightful and, at times, profound. Its jokes on such aspects of our culture as politics, entertainment and advertising, to name a few, has been spot-on.

Not on-purpose, with the U.S. and so many its leaders in an array of areas being the kind of people they are, "Mad's" writers were never without targets in which to poke holes. Though this may have ruffled a few egos over the year, it has long been my perspective those at the top need to be satirized from time-to-time. Not only does this give them an opportunity to assess their behavior, it also provides us affected by their decisions and personalities with a reminder that they are just as human as us and, as a result, no better as people. So thank you, "Mad" magazine. If you ever think of coming out of retirement, then that will be fine by me.