Communication 101: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly

[Medusa]

I have long been interested in communication styles and how people choose to get their point across, choose to listen to someone else get their point across, and choose to agree to disagree.

I have learned so much about communication from my 13+years of being on the internet, even though it's probably a little cringe-worthy to admit it. I have lots of different styles of communication, things that work and things that don't work, and ways that people ingest information and regurgitate it back to the conversation and how, often, the biproducts look very different depending on who processed what was said.

I would like to start an open dialogue about communication and how we can ALL use healthy communication tactics. I am willing to provide examples of things that I see that are problematic in conversations (generalized, not personalized).

Example 1: Medusa posts a thread called "Cosmetic Tips for Femmes" and states that she would like other Femmes to come in and give their ideas and tips for make-up application.

The first post in the thread is June saying "I dont wear cosmetics because I feel that cosmetics are sexist and I dont need them due to my natural beauty."

Medusa reads that and immediately feels defensive because June says that she feels that cosmetics are sexist and Medusa doesnt want to be seen as engaging in a sexist activity so she feels the need to defend her right to wear cosmetics. She also wonders if June is passive-aggressively alluding to the idea that Medusa is really an ugly hag by saying that she doesnt need the cosmetics due to her natural beauty.

Medusa gets angry and posts a retort that says "Well, hell, if you dont wear cosmetics then why the hell are you in this thread? Its CLEARLY marked for people who wear cosmetics!!!"

What just happened?

What GOOD communication skills can be employed in the above scenario?
What BAD communication skills were employed in the above scenario?
Do you see the potential for the ugly there?

I think that people who engage in conversations all have a responsibility to one another if they want to truly have a meaningful conversation. I, personally, am not a fan of drive-bys for this reason (unless they are funny and add levity to the conversation when things are too serious). Im also not a fan of "opinion bombs" where someone comes in to a conversation and drops their bomb and then refuses to come back and talk about why they feel the way they do.

I am WAY guilty of having shitty communication skills in some conversations. I have done the drive-by, the opinion bomb, the snarky one-liner, and the repetitive "here is my opinion" on a repeat record. It never really helped anyone hear me better. Imagine that.

I do think that people process information through their own filters and I have been seeing an incredible amount of personalization going on in some of the threads lately and an over-abundance of personal attacks. Im pretty tired of it and think that the conversations around here would be much better suited for growth and actual productive exchange if we could all learn to take off our "me me me" glasses and see the scenario as a whole, not just through our own lens.
One of the ways that I have been learning to do that in my own world is by replaying the scenario in my head but changing the characters and seeing if I feel any differently. Sometimes I do and when that happens it tells me that Im over-personalizing things.

I hope we can have a good conversation here and am interested to see what folks have to say!

Let's talk about it!

[Andrew, Jr.]

Well, I suck at communication. I try my best. Sometimes what I say and what I mean are different. This is very frustrating for me. It is like my body. It fails me.

[Medusa]

...continuing this thought process.....


If I am Medusa in the above scenario, I might not feel good about trying to start a thread to commune with my Femme sisters (or even Butches who wear makeup) and having someone make a statement that feels like a value judgment.

If I am June in the above scenario, I might truly see wearing cosmetics as a problematic issue rooting from sexism and I might want my Femme sisters (or Butches who wear makeup) to look at what they are doing from another angle.

There could be a million explanations for the way that people feel the way they do but what would be a healthy way to look at it? When people give an opinion that is different than your own, do you internalize it? Does it matter if that opinion includes a value judgement (implied or overt)?

[Apocalipstic]

Maybe I would congratulate June on her natural beauty, but admit that I love cool makeup (when its not this hot out) and that for me cosmetics are about something I enjoy and continue on with the thread.

I think it is important to read carefully and equally important to think about cultural differences. Maybe in the Pacific Northwest makeup is viewed differently than it is in the South? Maybe the word "cosmetics" means something different. Maybe June has had a bad personal experience with cosmetics. Who knows.

I think not taking June's post personally is important. Yes, it night be insensitive of her to mention her natural beauty when we might need trowels of cover-up :), but is it worth getting all bent out of shape?

Hell, June might just be having a bad day and not have meant anything at all by her comment.

(hoping we all know this is an example, not that I think June is insensitive:) )

[Medusa]

You immediately get 100 bonus points for the use of the word "trowels"!!!!

[Andrew, Jr.]

Medusa,

I apologise for not answering your question the way you meant for it to be.

I just think we all should celebrate each other. Life is hard enough. Why not just love and embrace each other as we are. It should be as simple as that.

Love,
Andrew

[DapperButch]

*Bump*

Ok, so I have nothing to say at the moment, but I didn't want this thread to get lost in the shuffle...

I am thinking if some noticed this thread, they would want to post, so I thought I would bump it up.

[Linus]

What GOOD communication skills can be employed in the above scenario?
What BAD communication skills were employed in the above scenario?
Do you see the potential for the ugly there?

I think that people who engage in conversations all have a responsibility to one another if they want to truly have a meaningful conversation. I, personally, am not a fan of drive-bys for this reason (unless they are funny and add levity to the conversation when things are too serious). Im also not a fan of "opinion bombs" where someone comes in to a conversation and drops their bomb and then refuses to come back and talk about why they feel the way they do.

I am WAY guilty of having shitty communication skills in some conversations. I have done the drive-by, the opinion bomb, the snarky one-liner, and the repetitive "here is my opinion" on a repeat record. It never really helped anyone hear me better. Imagine that.

I do think that people process information through their own filters and I have been seeing an incredible amount of personalization going on in some of the threads lately and an over-abundance of personal attacks. Im pretty tired of it and think that the conversations around here would be much better suited for growth and actual productive exchange if we could all learn to take off our "me me me" glasses and see the scenario as a whole, not just through our own lens.
One of the ways that I have been learning to do that in my own world is by replaying the scenario in my head but changing the characters and seeing if I feel any differently. Sometimes I do and when that happens it tells me that Im over-personalizing things.

I hope we can have a good conversation here and am interested to see what folks have to say!

Let's talk about it!

The sections I bolded are what I often see. Too often we look at threads and think to ourselves how this affects just OUR (aka ME! ME! ME! -- think gulls from Finding Nemo) point of view. Part of that, I believe, is that we really do want to be part of the community/conversation and can only really speak on our own experience and how it relates. But I think part of it is how the Internet has evolved and changed communication skills within society as a whole.

I certainly have done it but try to avoid it and try to actively listen. This means, to me, trying to envision someone's else's point of view as well as "actively listening" (e.g., asking for further clarification of their POV, asking them questions that might develop the question/thought/idea more, etc.)

...continuing this thought process.....


If I am Medusa in the above scenario, I might not feel good about trying to start a thread to commune with my Femme sisters (or even Butches who wear makeup) and having someone make a statement that feels like a value judgment.

If I am June in the above scenario, I might truly see wearing cosmetics as a problematic issue rooting from sexism and I might want my Femme sisters (or Butches who wear makeup) to look at what they are doing from another angle.

There could be a million explanations for the way that people feel the way they do but what would be a healthy way to look at it? When people give an opinion that is different than your own, do you internalize it? Does it matter if that opinion includes a value judgement (implied or overt)?

I try to acknowledge, internally, that not everyone has the kind of day I do. Most of my days are relatively happy -- although I do have my frustration days. I tend to post passively. This means, to me, that I write like I talk in the mood that I am (not always good since sometimes I think faster than I write and I forget to ask myself what I had said). Since I cannot read someone's body language over the internet (unless I do a video conference) I can only assume that they post neutrally unless it's obvious to me (e.g., June says "I'M STAMPING MY FEET NOW AT YOU FOR NOT GIVING ME A PRETTY POODLE EMOTICON! POUT!").

But if someone does respond in a way that is unexpected (at least in response to a post I put up) I step back and give it time before I reply. I try to avoid "reactionary" posts and will even avoid logging in for that purpose. After giving myself 24 hours (or more) to think about it, I may reply or not. I don't need the last word in. Sometimes, it's better not to.

As I learned in my support group we need to recognize the concept of "step up, step back" (i.e., if you haven't spoken, then speak up; if you've talked a lot, then step back to let others speak) as well as "check in, check out" (ask the original poster first before changing the topic and when the topic is done, let others know -- I may find a Question/Answer mod where people can ask questions and mark it as Answered when they get the answer that helps them).

I may have more thoughts on this but will step back for now.

[sharkchomp]

About 20 years ago I got off of work early in the morning (I worked third shift) and went home to change clothes before heading back out with my pals. I told my Mom that I was going to change my clothes. I assumed she knew I was going back out with my friends. She assumed that I was changing into my pj's and going to bed. Imagine her surprise when she got a phone call a few hours later about me being in the emergency room!!!

The keys word there was assumed. I see alot of people assume they understand a posters intent or what they actually mean and then they respond quickly. I'm sure we've all seen huge communication issues resolved simply because someone asked for clarification first. There are times when people just disagree and I think issues from that fall out can carry over into other threads.

I know for myself it can be hard to see beyond the ME ME ME type of thinking to see the whole picture. I think it can be difficult to do that sometimes.

~~~shark~~~~~~

[Chancie]

Example 1: Medusa posts a thread called "Cosmetic Tips for Femmes" and states that she would like other Femmes to come in and give their ideas and tips for make-up application.

The first post in the thread is June saying "I dont wear cosmetics because I feel that cosmetics are sexist and I dont need them due to my natural beauty."

I think June'y should mind her own beeswax and start a different thread about how the use of makeup and foot binding and girdles serve to control women in a patriarchal society.

Because if I want to read a thread about makeup, it's irritating to me when other members attempt to micromanage what they think we should all be discussing.

[Gayla]

Because if I want to read a thread about makeup, it's irritating to me when other members attempt to micromanage what they think we should all be discussing.

I typed out a whole long thing and then came back to see that you had said it all in one line. Well, two lines, I guess depending on screen size.

Yeah, a lot of threads start off as one thing and end up going off in tangents but there's usually something redeeming in the mix of it all. It almost never fails that someone comes in and tells us what we should be talking about rather then just contributing something to the conversation we're actually having. So yeah, I get kinda tired of being told we're doing it wrong.

I also think I often try so hard to not take things personally that I go so far in the opposite direction as to be really irritating. I know it often comes across as if I'm speaking for other people or absolutely everyone when it's really just me trying to understand without internalizing. I also find myself posting from a theoretical level more often then a personal level so I've been trying to change that yet find some type of balance. I also find myself so very conscious of wording things in ways so as not to be offensive to someone that my posts often end up water down to say not much of anything. Or, they end up with so many qualifiers that the point gets lost.

[violaine]

[QUOTE=Medusa;130975]Example 1: Medusa posts a thread called "Cosmetic Tips for Femmes" and states that she would like other Femmes to come in and give their ideas and tips for make-up application.

The first post in the thread is June saying "I dont wear cosmetics because I feel that cosmetics are sexist and I dont need them due to my natural beauty."

Medusa reads that and immediately feels defensive because June says that she feels that cosmetics are sexist and Medusa doesnt want to be seen as engaging in a sexist activity so she feels the need to defend her right to wear cosmetics. She also wonders if June is passive-aggressively alluding to the idea that Medusa is really an ugly hag by saying that she doesnt need the cosmetics due to her natural beauty.

Medusa gets angry and posts a retort that says "Well, hell, if you dont wear cosmetics then why the hell are you in this thread? Its CLEARLY marked for people who wear cosmetics!!!"

What just happened?

if i were to start a thread on cosmetics, i would invite all sorts of opinion. i am not sure that i see anything 'wrong' with june's comments in this example, and if anything, i would consider a sense of playfulness with 'natural beauty' - and/or an appreciation. wondering if the person was being passive-aggressive, and then becoming defensive [based on perception], seems a short route to engaging conversation.

What GOOD communication skills can be employed in the above scenario?

maybe asking questions prior to making unsavoury immediate connections to you could be helpful, and if responses differ from your own, with any strong/negative emotions following - wonder on presence of expectations?

What BAD communication skills were employed in the above scenario?

opposing views and seriousness are not the same as negative/bad communication to me- and unless a person is typing in lots of caps, and/or a moderator comes in to smooth things over, i may not even notice - be looking for- the 'worst'. if 'clearly' was not capitalised, and a question asked on 'sexism', the topic may have easily taken another turn.

Do you see the potential for the ugly there?

only because of the set-up, in other words, the mention of 'defensive/defensiveness/passive-aggressive'.

[Gemme]

Kindness isn't translated well over the internet. For me, it goes beyond body language and intent.

If someone...let's pick on Juney some more, shall we?...if Juney says to me that she finds make up sexist and (not connected, but still something that she noticed) that, with my current made up face I look like a cross between a hooker and a circus clown pandering for approval from strangers, I would be okay with that. Honestly.

Because I see her kindness in not wanting me to look like someone who is seeking approval outside of myself. But not everyone knows how kind June can be. So, they might view the exchange through their filter and their filter comes customized with years of violent verbal and physical abuse, so they begin trip, trip, tripping down memory lane....all because of Juney being kind enough to not want someone to look like a horny clown and me being heavy-handed in the makeup department. :blink:

Listening online...in the "right" ways...is comprised of the same components that listening in the "right" ways in person is. Person A speaks. Person B hears what Person A said and repeats back what Person B thought s/he heard Person A said. Person A either confirms or denies and corrects what Person B heard. Rinse, lather, repeat.

My thoughts are kind of helter skelter right now, so forgive me if I'm not making sense.

The potential for ugly is always there. It's a tightrope we walk every day (Obviously, I'm having some sort of fascination with the circus right now....it's probably jealousy that a coworker got to go see Kooza this weekend and I didn't but I'm trying to let it go....no, really....:blink:).

You know what cures a lot of things and is really, really simple and free? Air! If we all took one or twelve or five hundred and thirty-two deep breaths before posting (especially on the more heated threads), I think we'd be able to practice better communication skills more often (or pass out from hyperventilating, but yanno...).

If it worked for Drew Barrymore in Ever After, it can work for me. I. Just. Breathe.

[Chancie]

Example 1: Medusa posts a thread called "Cosmetic Tips for Femmes" and states that she would like other Femmes to come in and give their ideas and tips for make-up application.

The first post in the thread is June saying "I dont wear cosmetics because I feel that cosmetics are sexist and I dont need them due to my natural beauty."

<snip>

Do you see the potential for the ugly there?

only because of the set-up, in other words, the mention of 'defensive/defensiveness/passive-aggressive'.

Miss V, it's hard for me to quote the quotes within the quotes so I snipped a lot of what you wrote, but I want to respond to it.

With much respect, if Medusa posted a thread asking for ideas and feelings about makeup to help her figure out what topics are of interest, and I don't mean in her role as Administrator, just as a member interested in what other community members think, and she encourages us to scaffold from her thread and start our own threads, then it makes sense to me that the topics may be wide and varied. But if she posts a thread about makeup tips, than it feels disrespectful to me when members mutiny the thread with their own agenda.

In a way, this isn't a good example, because it is possible to talk about brands of makeup and retail choices, as well as the deeper social, political and cultural underpinnings of body adornment and modification.

I am not discounting the many different ways we all learn and think and process, goodness knows, but for me, someone who is easily distracted, who is old and has bad eyes, someone who needs a break from a demanding job and lately, some serious health issues, my ability to participate in the discourse is compromised by some members' rigidity and by other members desire that we all get along, kumbaya.

[violaine]

chancie,

i was responding to the scenario provided. i thought the thread was open to multidimensional discussion dialogue? for people who process things differently/different ideas?

medusa wrote "let's talk about it!"

to me, that meant anyone reading the thread who wishes to respond.

[suebee]

One thing is for sure: there's always the possibility that two people will read the same words and hear a completely different message. I remember one time I was hopping mad because of what I considered a snide comment directed at me, and nobody else saw what I saw. So I did the only possible thing there was to do - I apologized. It seems like a simple thing, but as we all know, it ain't always so.

Now on one day or another I'll have no self-control, or I'll be feeling shitty, or the cat just got run over by a car or some such tragedy, and I'll let the person have it with both barrels. But I try to disengage if I feel myself getting tense and know I'm headed for a confrontation, and I try my best not to be baited. And even though we all hope that that type of behavior has been left behind us, we all came to this site with our own baggage. Mine was ordered from Sears by Mommy and Daddy and given to me as a graduation present, so I've had it for quite a while. :|

I taught crisis intervention to human service professionals for a number of years, and the biggest yet simplest lesson I learned from that was something Medusa mentioned: ask the person what they mean before assuming you know what they're saying. It's worth the time it takes. Believe it or not, 80% of the professionals I taught ASSUMED that if a person in crisis asked questions, they were challenging the authority of the (nurse, teacher, counsellor, etc.) in question. So anyone who finds they do this on occasion - you're in good company.

Great thread Medusa. I'm sure it'll be interesting.

[Chancie]

Yes!

Violaine, that is exactly what I thought Medusa was asking.

Perhaps I am focusing too closely on the example she used.

I tend to be a close thinker, and

I know that is not everyone's style.

[violaine]

i am thinking about 'mutiny' and 'own agenda', and wanted to share some confusion i've caused / been caused on the site, which may have been viewed, though i doubt harshly, along the lines of those terms.

a thread here on word expressions. for the life of me, i could not seem to get it right! a nice person messaged me after a while, to let me know the rules, which i was sure of, because i was posting in the thread- and said so. probably important to note here that i continued [and continued] to post - and i'm not fond of considering it 'wrong' because it was just 'different' ;)

the posts i submitted were word connections, but not the common phrases/expressions called for in the game. i'm sure it took me a bit of time to sort it out, silly as it may read, better connecting hemispherically.

small example of communication differences, and i let the person know when i finally 'got' the thing everyone else readily grasped.

[Daywalker]

I think it's important to keep certain things at the forefront of
your mind when engaging in Communities such as this one.
:hypno:

For me, one of those things is to always remember is that while I am
celebrating and basking in the company of this vast variety of folks here
(and am grateful to be privy to), I've also developed a 'custom' set of
filters, as this vast variety factor can also mean that shit can
get hella icky in the blink of a cursor.
:doh:

I always keep a mental post-it in front of my mind when reading/replying
to threads ~ one that reminds me that my opinion can and will vary from
others, and mine is not the only one that matters. Like, for example...not
everyone likes Koolaid, I love the stuff but that doesn't mean
people who don't like it are wrong.
:koolaid:

It means I've just been exposed to another side of things,
a different perspective n what have you.

:deepthoughts:

It's not always a 'right' or 'wrong'.

It's not always a 'us' vs 'them' or 'me' vs 'you'.
:argue:

When we're growing up we are curious, and observant of other peoples
likes, dislikes, opinions, reactions, moods...all that stuff, it's how we
'grew up' ~ it's how we gained our knowledge. Somewhere along
the line, probably in our know-it-all years...this ritual of observation
got lost on a lot of folks. Learning about people and how to communicate
is the same for adults as kids. I hope that made sense. I guess we get
caught up in our own passions and opinions developed over the years
and cling to them as if...well, as if they are the 'right' way, the only way.


:thinking:

I knew I shoulda waited to fire up this doobie,
now I've lost mah train of thought.
:weedsmoke:


:flyingweed:


Oh, yeah...also wanted to say that the style of delivery can be everything.
:hamactor:

However...it can be daunting to folks who have no prior knowledge of
particular styles of delivery and communication that some of the long time
members possess; for example if Chancie were to tell someone to 'Sit up
straight', those of us who know her also know how endearing the intent
of that phrase is, those who do not...might respond defensively or whatever.

Anyway, now I've rambled and I blame Medusa.
:eyebrow:
And Juney. Just because.
:cheesy:



:peacelove:


:daywalker:

[Nat]

I was listening to a podcast about add/adhd the other day, and the hosts were talking about social/communication problems we have. I know I can't be the only affected member, so I thought I would go ahead and post them here.

We aren't always aware when we are communicating too much or too little. We can make ourselves a pest when we are communicating too much. We can hurt people's feelings by forgetting about them for long periods of time. Time is experienced very differently for many of us, and we tend to get entirely involved in the thing that is right in front of us. We can have poor impulse control. We forget to close loops in conversation - so we often don't complete a conversation the same way others might. We have trouble categorizing or differentiating "important" details from minutia. We have a lot of trouble with follow-up and follow-through. Our minds don't stay on topic, and we may often veer or pingpong from one topic to another. A third of us display some OCD tendencies, and many of us struggle with depression, anxiety or are bipolar. We can be very inattentive listeners and readers. I myself am a very slow reader and often I will impulsively respond to something half-way through reading it.

We are generally accepting and liking of others, though more formal and rigid rules of friendship are often impossible for us to understand or maintain. Through years of living with add/adhd, many of us have developed a learned helplessness in response to the negative results of our unintended behaviors. We reach overwhelm quickly and many of us carry around shame regarding the results of our neurological differences. Many of us grew up being told we were lazy, that we just needed to apply ourselves, that we should understand how to follow the rules, that we need to listen better, that we need to stop talking or daydreaming and pay attention, that we need to organize our whatevers.

Anyway, I thought I would put this here because it's a neurological difference that leads to different communication approaches and styles, and it's a relatively large amount of people who have it.

Oh, and we often forget things, which can really irritate people too.

One thing I really like about this site is the existence of the reps and thank you buttons an visitor messages. Having a brain that's always telling me to respond respond respond respond, these multiple options give me more access to being able to respond without disrupting or derailing a thread, and the thank you button has especially helped me be a better listener/reader.

[Hack]

What I personally find interesting is that I seem to have a different communications style at work than I do in my personal life. At work, I am ham-fisted blunt and I sometimes interrupt people. I mean, to the point where I have written on the back of my hand "shut up and listen" before I go in to a meeting. My job is to steer the communications/public relations image for an entire organization, so when I see people veering off the path I have put us all on that's when I become the interrupting, way too direct prick, I think. And when dealing with certain members of the media, I am the same way. Yet, it seems to work for my boss, who heads up the entire organization, and prefers that I am pro-active and aggressive -- interesting that this is the way she sees it, though, compared to how I view it, right?

In my personal life, I am just the opposite. When I meet someone, they usually tell me how quiet I am.

I'm not ashamed to admit that I have spent the last 4 years in therapy working on communication issues. What I have come to learn is that so much of how we communicate is shaped by experience since birth. I was brought up in a house where shiny, happy children were seen, but not heard. And then given no basis for emotional intelligence as a child, I found myself behind the learning curve as a young adult. While I am still painfully shy, I find it much easier, thanks to therapy, to communicate my needs, desires and to tell people no. "No" is one of the first words we learn, but it is often the most difficult to say. The other big part of communicating, of course, is listening...and I think a lot of people forget that. It's just not about talking, but being an engaged listener as well.

Jake

[AtLast]

chancie,

i was responding to the scenario provided. i thought the thread was open to multidimensional discussion dialogue? for people who process things differently/different ideas?medusa wrote "let's talk about it!"

to me, that meant anyone reading the thread who wishes to respond.

Processing! Yes, individual ways of processing information seems so crucial to me. This along with individual backgrounds, age, race, ethnicity, just life experience all combines in each unique communication style.

The only on-line community I have ever been a part of is this one, really and the one thing that I always have to remember is that there is a wealth of differences between and among us.

LOL... and I am now aware of the post-menopausal structures of my communication process... a new day!

[Andrew, Jr.]

I struggle day in and day out with communication. I try very hard to express myself. It is a never-ending battle with me. Words and sentences just are exhausting. Just not my strong suit. I admire those folks who are able to express themselves very well. You are blessed. In school teacher's shamed me for failing tests, and used me as an example to other students. If you don't do this, you will be like so and so.

Andrew

[deeperstill]

Great thread Medusa. I don't think I saw this noted yet (apologies if someone's already mentioned this), but the Center for Nonviolent Communication (cnvc.org) has an interesting perspective on communication:
"NVC begins by assuming that we are all compassionate by nature and that violent strategies—whether verbal or physical—are learned behaviors taught and supported by the prevailing culture. NVC also assumes that we all share the same, basic human needs, and that each of our actions are a strategy to meet one or more of these needs." The website actually has a list of needs and a list of feelings -- the exercise is to identify the feelings that arise when our needs are being met and the feelings that arise when our needs are not being met. The very first day I skimmed the lists I experienced a shift in perspective that allowed me a greater capacity to hear other people. :rrose:

[WolfyOne]

I must have missed this thread when it was started.

I'm really enjoying reading the posts here.

My communication skills aren't always the best. I can however communicate better online than I can in person. Online I get a chance to digest what I read and post accordingly. In person, I have hearing loss and if I miss part of a conversation, I'm lost unless someone repeats what they said.

I guess I'm going to say it has to do with the difference between hearing and understanding online just as it does in real life. The skills you bring to an online discussion has to do with how you absorb what you read. Kind of like, did you hear me if we were holding a conversation. The key to both is the understanding. So, even though you heard me, you might not have understood me. Lets not jump the gun or get angry because you read it differently than I write it even if I can't convey it the same way if you were in front of me. Now we're at body language and you can't see me behind my computer screen. How to make my online thoughts come to life as I would in a conversation? If you can think it or say it, write it down and reread it. If it looks the same on the screen as you feel it would by coming out of your mouth, post it.

There are days I struggle with words and am thankful for friends that know me and can back me up when I miss a step or two. I'm sure we've all had days like that. Good, bad or ugly, we need to be responsible for our words once we hit the send button for the world to see. Coming back to clarify a post someone has a problem with is imperative. Without it, other posters will start to make assumptions over the post and we all know where that leads. I think if you can't be responsible for your actions, the rest of us need to learn to let go of that post because the poster may have just done what they set out to do. Pit us against each other and kick back and watch.

Lastly, the way you see it, may be different than the way I see it, but it doesn't mean we have to attack each other. A simple, can you expound on that should be suffice without an attack of words. Without the proper tools to communicate, I'd be afraid to post anything or even talk to others.

Notice I didn't use June as an example.......what the hell is wrong with me :|

[suebee]

<snip> Coming back to clarify a post someone has a problem with is imperative. Without it, other posters will start to make assumptions over the post and we all know where that leads. I think if you can't be responsible for your actions, the rest of us need to learn to let go of that post because the poster may have just done what they set out to do. Pit us against each other and kick back and watch.

Lastly, the way you see it, may be different than the way I see it, but it doesn't mean we have to attack each other. A simple, can you expound on that should be suffice without an attack of words. Without the proper tools to communicate, I'd be afraid to post anything or even talk to others.
<snip>


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!

[WolfyOne]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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?

[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?

[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

[Nat]

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]

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.

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.

[katsarecool]

Great topic BTW and was happy to see it bumped!

I also have been on the net for 15 years and have learned a great deal about the positive ways to communicate in this medium. It is very different when talking to someone in RT.

I have learned to speak to someone through typing exactly as if we were having a face to face conversation. And repeating back to a poster what I thought I heard in hopes it would become clearer to me or perhaps I misunderstood.

I have learned that hammering home my own opinion does nothing but cause anger and resentment all around. I also learned to speak my truth quietly and that it is ok to walk away and it is not ok to always have the last word.

I also learned that once a debator gets angry and posts in an angry manner they have lost the debate and their audience.

I also learned to use "pull words" rather than "push words". Such as "it would be a good idea if you did this for that problem" vs "well you better, you have to, you should, you must do that". I also learned to stay on topic as much as possible and try not to be baited to off topics by someone who disagrees with me. Best to either futher make clear my position if unclear and then to just walk away.

And the 24 hour rule that has been mentioned when upset about a subject is awesome and works!!!! If I have to respond right away I do it in Word first, wait the day and go back and read what I wrote. Most of the time I won't post it.

Thanks for opening this thread and it is a good read indeed!

[Linus]

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]

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...

[DapperButch]

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.

[DapperButch]

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.

Medusa -

Yes, "planting a seed" is the best way to describe it. I also love you terming it "suggestive communication" (or calling it a "suggestive form of communication", rather). That fits, perfectly!

[morningstar55]

great thread.........
i do know that... my communcations can be a mess sometimes. :( .. lol

[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]

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.




Well, yeah. I think that Medusa was just posting one web site up for us to discuss. :)

There are lots of stuff out there, like this:

http://www.drbackman.com/communication-styles.htm

I do think what she posted is the most common descriptors when groups gather to discuss, "communication styles", however.

[Toughy]

Very interesting website with info on ways to better communicate.........I did one of their study groups and it was really good and fit nicely with cognitive behavior therapy.

http://www.cnvc.org/

[katsarecool]

Frankie, my cat is a very passive-aggressive communicator! I am serious! The little stinker... for example when walking to anywhere from my bedroom if his bowl is empty he will flop down right in front of my feet and refuse to budge unless I head to the kitchen. That can be dangerous for a black cat at night with a mom who has balance and walking problems. :)

I think in order to have a good relationship (with anyone people and pets) passive-aggression should be avoided at all costs.

[waxnrope]

I appreciate the discussion on communication. Mostly, I appreciate the recognition that there are multiple styles. And, the unfortunate reality that not one style is suitable for every person.

Where I think that we need to exercise caution is in the manner in which we throw out the term "passive aggressive." This is a psychiatric term relating to a personality disorder. It has ranking within the DSM (currently IV) scales. What this means, like the past use of calling one's neighbor schizophrenic without having fully understood the dimensions of the disorder, calling people passive aggressive without having the tools (or the credentials), the objective observations can just serve to belittle behavior which one disagrees. I think we should be careful here.
For anyone with interest, the following link provides the criteria for the DIAGNOSIS of this disorder. Just reading it does not give the right to sling it around at random. There are nuances ..

http://www.ptypes.com/passive-aggpd.html

Just my $.02 worth and not meant to attack anyone who has used it ... merely a suggestion to reflect about how common the complex and complicated (and, dangerous if misused) commonly accepted practices become.

[Just_G]

I come from a very dysfunctional family where nobody talks about anything. Everyone always acts like everything is okay and never asks questions beyond the basic, "how ya doin'?" type of thing.

Because I have been around this my whole life, I didn't realize what a bad communicator I have been. I have been told that I don't ever give back any input and I never ask any questions when in the midst of a conversation. This has caused me problems in the last couple of relationships I have been in, and when they point it out I feel like I am being scolded...when in all actuality, I thought if I asked anything I would just be being nosey. I hate that I am not inquisitive...apparently some people think I just don't care, when I am actually listening; just not saying much.

When I type things out, I am a fantastic communicator, but in person, apparently I am lacking. :blink:

Does anyone know of any books that help with communication?

I read the link that Medusa posted, and I know that I am a passive communicator now. Talk about hitting the nail on the head! It's funny because I think I am so social and outgoing, but when it comes to sitting and holding a serious conversation, apparently, I am something completely different. I have been really frustrated with this lately, and know that this is taking it's toll on my relationships. I hate that I just "take" whatever someone has to say to/about me, and it ends up feeling like I am in trouble or "less than" because I am not the best at communicating.

I guess add this to my list of changes for 2011! :winky:

[DapperButch]

I appreciate the discussion on communication. Mostly, I appreciate the recognition that there are multiple styles. And, the unfortunate reality that not one style is suitable for every person.

Where I think that we need to exercise caution is in the manner in which we throw out the term "passive aggressive." This is a psychiatric term relating to a personality disorder. It has ranking within the DSM (currently IV) scales. What this means, like the past use of calling one's neighbor schizophrenic without having fully understood the dimensions of the disorder, calling people passive aggressive without having the tools (or the credentials), the objective observations can just serve to belittle behavior which one disagrees. I think we should be careful here.
For anyone with interest, the following link provides the criteria for the DIAGNOSIS of this disorder. Just reading it does not give the right to sling it around at random. There are nuances ..

http://www.ptypes.com/passive-aggpd.html

Just my $.02 worth and not meant to attack anyone who has used it ... merely a suggestion to reflect about how common the complex and complicated (and, dangerous if misused) commonly accepted practices become.

Hey, wax!

Just wanted to note that Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder was actually removed as a diagnosis from the DSM in the DSM IV version (published 1994, text version 2000). It was moved to Appendix B (for reference).

For me, using the term passive aggressive as it relates to communication styles is very different from someone have a Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder. One can communicate in a passive-aggressive way, but not meet the criteria for the old Passive - Aggressive Personality Disorder diagnosis.

So, when I say that someone is communicating in a passive-aggressive fashion, I am in no way saying that they have a personality disorder. I am merely speaking to their communication style.

[Gemme]

I've used all of the communication styles listed (subconsciously and intentionally) and think there is a time and place for all of them. It all depends on who you are communicating with, though I do agree that assertive is the most healthy style to use to communicate.

[Nat]

Heard this today - liked it - thought it might apply to sone stuff here. It sure applies to me.

-----


How We Hold Our Thoughts

More important than the kind of thoughts we have
is how we hold thoughts,
how we relate to them:

in the way we're attached,
we cling,
we resist things,
the way we are pushed around by things,
troubled by things

have a lot to do with how we hold our thoughts and ideas.

We have
what's going on,
ideas of who we are

if we can learn to hold our way of thinking very lightly
then it's easier to have the experience of being porous
as opposed to having a wall
or something solid
that the world hits when it encounters us.

When someone says something
or does something
and it hits us -

if we're holding tightly to some idea,
holding tight to some concept,
some story,
some opinion,
some world of thinking -

then that tightness,
that holding,
is often the thing that the world encounters and strikes.

Sometimes it meets with hard resistence
and sometimes we get knocked over.
Sometimes if the holding is kind of tenuous,
we can feel vulnerable
because we're kind of holding,
we're kind of not,
we're kind of open,
we're kind of not.
We're not quite ready to let go,
but we're not quite holding on either.

It's nice to consider that there's another way to be -
to hold thoughts so lightly that you're porous.
If somebody says something
it's almost like it goes right through you.
It doesn't stick anywhere,
doesn't hit anything,
doesn't get stuck by anything,
there's no hooks inside us,
no buttons inside us that get pushed.

So the idea is to be porous
and let things come through and move out.
They can still have an impact,
we can still be emotionally moved by things,
but the emotional response is also moved through freely, openly.
We don't hold onto it.

It's important to look
at how you're holding your thoughts.
Are you riding them really close?
Are you giving them a lot of authority?
Do you believe your thoughts are who you really are?
Do you believe every thought you've believed?
Are you judging your thoughts a lot?
How do you relate to thoughts
and can you loosen the grip of thoughts?

Thoughts can come and go,
they can be good thoughts,
they can be bad thoughts,
but if we hold them lightly
then it's easier to be relaxed about what happens around us.

- Gil Fronsdal - Audio Dharma podcast

[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. :blink:

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.

[Gemme]

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. :blink:

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.

Hindsight is 20/20.

Perhaps, if something like this should occur in the future, tell your friend what type of communicator YOU think YOU are and ask him/her what they feel is their communication style and then take the conversation from there. Maybe ask how you can be a better communicator with them.

It's very true about the importance of wording something right. I think she heard blame instead of a search for improvement. Defensive tools, ENGAGE! Once those walls come up, the ears close. I know when my feelers get all bent out of shape, everything gets sucked inward and I tend to focus on how hurt I am and how what so and so said made me feel. I'm not concerned at that point about the other person's feelings or intent. At least not until after I've thought things through a bit.

At this point, I'd let her cool off for a little while. Not too long. Maybe email or write her and say that you didn't mean to sound accusatory, but were looking to learn how to communicate with her better. Maybe she'll be more open to discuss it then.

Good luck!

[JustJo]

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. :blink:

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.

This is the primary challenge that I have in communicating with aggressive communicators...because, in my experience, they don't hear feedback as feedback and a topic for discussion...but as criticism or an attack that they must defend against.

I think Gemme's advice is good...and I hope it works for you.

For me, the longer I live, the more tired I am of tip-toeing around aggressive communicators while they are stomping all over me. I prefer to spend my time with those who will really have a discussion.

These days...I tend to say "I intended this as something we could talk about...not as an attack on you. When and if you want to talk...I'd be happy to." And then I walk away (physically and/or emotionally).

It isn't the best technique, I know...but at this point it's all I can do.

Best of luck. :rrose:

[Just_G]

I kind of did just that. I mentioned that I brought it up as a discussion topic and that I was not saying she IS aggressive, but that the way she communicates in conversations is more like what is described by that link for aggressive communication. We have talked about the aggressive communication thing before; like the fact she was in debate club in highschool and sometimes that is how she approaches some conversations....in a "I am going to tell you what I think, you can say what you want, but it's not gonna matter" kind of way.

I think I need some time to catch my breath. I do NOT like confrontation. :blink: I like to actually TALK, and not get all worked up til my chest is pounding. :seeingstars:

Thank you both for your input....I really do take to heart what you have said!

[Nat]

It sounds like you stumbled across a source of shame for her. If somebody told me I was an aggressive communicator, I would be all ears and want to know more. Or maybe she was being mean to you.

[Blade]

For me it is harder to communicate online than in person. In person one can see my expression and feed off of body language. A few years back I said something like "you go girl" or "I hear ya girl" something like that to someone online and she came unglued. I was stunned. Later someone who knew me in RT explained to me that she knows I used that phrase all the time, but to this other femme it was like an insult. So just using this as an example I had to almost learn to communicate online like a different language.

I've also had people clean my clock over a post, where they interpreted what I said way differently than was my intent. We are not from the same places, or families, or had the same lifes experiences. Therefore we don't communicate the same way to begin with. Probably communication is a learned behavior, unless it is something you have worked on personally as an adult.

I had never heard of passive-aggressive in my life until the forums....chuckling of course there are many words I'd never heard of before internet. Most of those words are labeling words which a large majority of us say we hate labeling words.

Funny thing is now with a little online experience under my belt...well yeah I still stumble sometimes and get questioned about the way I've worded something, but the funny thing is how I see newbies come on and watch some of them post and the whole time I'm thinking OOoooo I bet so and so is about to clean their clock. Why do I not clean their clock or call them out. Well it's just not in my nature to be combative to begin with. To be honest I'm just not that sensitive about others words.

To me tone and body language mean a lot. I don't talk loud, I don't yell at people and it is rare that I use a hateful tone of voice. I do believe you have to have a certain respect for your audience and they for you. If you don't have a certain respect you've lost your audience from the beginning, which possibly means you have both potentially lost out.

Anyway just my .02 worth

[Just_G]

It sounds like you stumbled across a source of shame for her. If somebody told me I was an aggressive communicator, I would be all ears and want to know more. Or maybe she was being mean to you.

Nat, you hit the nail right on the head! I think that me being honest with her...in a very explanatory way (that's the passive communicator in me..always trying to explain everything..see?) was taken as me being snarky. I hate that it was taken that way, but like Blade said, it is hard to communicate via written word as opposed to spoken word.

One thing that has really helped me to not get defensive in situations like this is that I will read whatever it is in several different ways/tones. Once I do that, I don't have that knee-jerk reaction...instead, I am coming from an understanding place. Not all people do that.

She is the one that told me she doesn't like the way I communicate or respond in conversations...I could have taken that the wrong way and pulled in to my turtle shell; but I didn't. Instead, I have ordered a couple of books on how to communicate better. Even though what she said kind of hurt my feelings, I took it to heart and really thought about it. I am trying to better myself in this area. I am trying to grow from what she told me.

Her reaction to what I said was the complete opposite and she is now in HER turtle shell....still not speaking to me. I guess I should take this for what it is and just keep myself moving forward. If she wants to talk; I now know that I need to handle it with extreme caution. Lesson learned.

[JustJo]

Nat, you hit the nail right on the head! I think that me being honest with her...in a very explanatory way (that's the passive communicator in me..always trying to explain everything..see?) was taken as me being snarky. I hate that it was taken that way, but like Blade said, it is hard to communicate via written word as opposed to spoken word.

One thing that has really helped me to not get defensive in situations like this is that I will read whatever it is in several different ways/tones. Once I do that, I don't have that knee-jerk reaction...instead, I am coming from an understanding place. Not all people do that.

She is the one that told me she doesn't like the way I communicate or respond in conversations...I could have taken that the wrong way and pulled in to my turtle shell; but I didn't. Instead, I have ordered a couple of books on how to communicate better. Even though what she said kind of hurt my feelings, I took it to heart and really thought about it. I am trying to better myself in this area. I am trying to grow from what she told me.

Her reaction to what I said was the complete opposite and she is now in HER turtle shell....still not speaking to me. I guess I should take this for what it is and just keep myself moving forward. If she wants to talk; I now know that I need to handle it with extreme caution. Lesson learned.

Hi Just G :)

Given that I don't know your friend or the history or the context or anything else about this conversation, please take this with a gigantic grain of salt.

However, what I see purely from what you've written is that you want to communicate....you're trying to get better at it...you're taking feedback, finding resources.

Her reaction sounds like she doesn't actually want to communicate...even though what she's doing is talking (or writing).

People use words for a whole lot of reasons....communication is one....control is another.

In my family of origin there was a whole lot of talking, and very little actual communication. Words were used to control, to wound, to keep people in their designated roles, etc. I'm really cautious around people who talk but rarely listen, or who can never be wrong. If someone can't say "wow...I didn't realize I was coming across that way"....then I tend to think they're talking for reasons other than communication.

[JustJo]

I've also had people clean my clock over a post, where they interpreted what I said way differently than was my intent. We are not from the same places, or families, or had the same lifes experiences. Therefore we don't communicate the same way to begin with. Probably communication is a learned behavior, unless it is something you have worked on personally as an adult.


Blade, I think this is really key. All of us come from a different history and context...when you say "buddy" you may mean a friend....when I say "buddy" you better look out. Small stuff, but important.

I think knowing where people come from is critical to really understanding them...especially if you're talking about emotionally charged stuff. Honestly, I've worked on communication (along with other issues) in counseling for years....and I still trip over it almost daily with Scoote....who is someone that I love dearly. If it's still that tricky with someone I love and live with...imagine how challenging it is when the relationship is more distant, or the communication is going out into the universe without benefit of body language and tone.

[Just_G]

Hi Just G :)

Given that I don't know your friend or the history or the context or anything else about this conversation, please take this with a gigantic grain of salt.

However, what I see purely from what you've written is that you want to communicate....you're trying to get better at it...you're taking feedback, finding resources.

Her reaction sounds like she doesn't actually want to communicate...even though what she's doing is talking (or writing).

People use words for a whole lot of reasons....communication is one....control is another.

In my family of origin there was a whole lot of talking, and very little actual communication. Words were used to control, to wound, to keep people in their designated roles, etc. I'm really cautious around people who talk but rarely listen, or who can never be wrong. If someone can't say "wow...I didn't realize I was coming across that way"....then I tend to think they're talking for reasons other than communication.

I never really thought about words being controlling in this situation until I read what you just wrote. I am really learning a lot from what you all have to say, and I really appreciate all the input I am getting.

I think you are absolutely right about using words to control people/situations. I have always cowered and apologized for things I have said...when deep down inside, I knew that my input was neither right or wrong, it was just a discussion, but I felt beat down and that what I had to say didn't matter. Well, what I have to say DOES matter, and I am trying to break out of that shell. Before if she would have asked me which style of communication she used, I would have answered with what she wanted to hear. That would have been sugar coating or worse yet, letting her control how I answered the question. When I think back to some of the heated discussions we got into, I really did feel whipped and she would dominate me and the conversation.

I am starting to say how I think and feel. Perhaps she feels she is losing that control that I KNOW she had over me. I am by no means trying to "win" or "get back" at her by any means. I want to be able to go back and have some of the discussions we had in the past. I think rather than sitting back and not saying anything, or just agreeing with her, I would actually be able to better engage without my thoughts causing a log jam between my mind and my mouth because I feel intimidated.

[Linus]

I just finished reading this piece by a SI sports writer: http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-21/opinion/pearlman.online.civility_1_online-haters-twitter-online-behavior?_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.

[JustJo]

I have always cowered and apologized for things I have said...when deep down inside, I knew that my input was neither right or wrong, it was just a discussion, but I felt beat down and that what I had to say didn't matter. Well, what I have to say DOES matter, and I am trying to break out of that shell. Before if she would have asked me which style of communication she used, I would have answered with what she wanted to hear. That would have been sugar coating or worse yet, letting her control how I answered the question. When I think back to some of the heated discussions we got into, I really did feel whipped and she would dominate me and the conversation.

I am starting to say how I think and feel. Perhaps she feels she is losing that control that I KNOW she had over me. I am by no means trying to "win" or "get back" at her by any means. I want to be able to go back and have some of the discussions we had in the past. I think rather than sitting back and not saying anything, or just agreeing with her, I would actually be able to better engage without my thoughts causing a log jam between my mind and my mouth because I feel intimidated.





Hi Just G :)

Not sure how I missed this post until today, but amen! This is exactly what I have done (and still do, and did again last night). And, your image of the log jam between mind and mouth is spot on....except for me the log jam is between heart and mind. I can keep talking....I just stop feeling. Once I start feeling intimidated, shut out, ignored or controlled....I stop being emotionally engaged. In a relationship, whether friendship or more intimate, that's deadly.

I totally hear you...and wish I had better answers. If you find some, please share them with me, okay?

I'm dealing with a situation right now in which I feel like a function rather than an appreciated person that counts...and it's killing the emotional connection in the process.

Here's what I'm facing...I'm told to say what I want, what I feel, what I think...and when I do the result is that I'm either ignored or showered with anger. If I don't say what I want/feel/think....then it's my fault that I don't get what I need. If I do say what I need....it doesn't happen anyway and I get the deluge of fury as well.

For me, this isn't about communication....it's about control. As long as I stay in my appointed role and don't express any needs or desires...then all is well. If I express unhappiness, need, insecurity, fear, hurt, dissatisfaction, frustration...anything that is difficult for the other to deal with...then it is suddenly all my fault. Meanwhile....the others in the situation are allowed to express their needs/wants and have them met.

I end up in the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation in which I cannot get my needs met, and I do not count. It's a trap....an emotional one rather than a physical one....but still a trap.

Here's the irony...all of that can be going on underneath a mantra of "you're my dearest friend" or "I love you" or "I'm saying this because I care about you" or "fill in the blank." But the subtext is "shut up about what you need/want/feel."

And...I do shut up. I also shut down.

[Kobi]

The info in this thread has stuck with me all day. It points out how complex communication can be.....what is said or not said, what is asked or avoided, what is said and what is heard, how emotion complicates communication, how people pushing our buttons affect how we react, what can happen when words and behavior don't mesh etc.

One thing I always try and keep in mind, aside from the complexities of interpersonal stuff, is that the only thing I really have control over is me, what I say and how I say it, saying what I mean, being clear and concise, being willing to listen, compromise, negotiate etc.

I can't control what is heard or how one reacts to what I might say or do. I cant control their motives or intentions. If it is important to me, I might ask questions and try to get clarification. But, I try real hard not to let other peoples stuff become my stuff.

This reality has helped me to not take others folks stuff personally, to keep things in perspective, to lessen the potentially harmful emotions, and to be less attached to a specific outcome.

It has also helped me to keep the focus on the "issue" rather than the style, tone, volume, and other distracting things that occur in communications or that are used to hamper communication. There is nothing more empowering than to face something on ones own terms rather than on someone else's terms.

I have also learned that people having the same experience, can interpret it very differently. I can only control my experience. I cannot control different expectations, needs, assessments, beliefs, feelings etc.

One of the most important things I have learned is people always tell us stuff if we pay attention. What is said, not said, done, not done, shared, not shared are all very important messages if we are paying attention to the clues. What we choose to do with these messages is up to us....but ignoring them is never wise.

I have also learned, for the most part, I can choose what and who I allow in my life.... the people, the issues, the potential problems, the communication styles, the way I allow others to treat me etc. Sometimes I cant i.e. family, co-workers etc. But it is to my advantage and well being to be very careful as to who and what I allow in my life when I have the choice.

Sometimes people think this is a very self serving way to live, to basically orchestrate one's life for ones own benefit. Some even call it controlling.

To me, this seems to be a very self respecting way to live ones life. To live ones life on ones own terms, as much as possible...isnt that what it is all about? This doesnt mean one doesnt struggle with things. It does mean, to me, the difference between dealing with something head on versus the back door. And accepting whatever the outcome is.

Communication doesnt take place in a vaccum. It is the product of our experiences, our learning, our beings, perspectives, beliefs, values etc. Somethings make us feel comfortable, some make us feel uncomfortable. Sometimes we have to step out of our comfort zone to get to foster communication and gets answers. And sometimes those answers arent to our liking. This doesnt mean the other person isnt communicating well, it means they are saying something we might not want to hear.

I find it helps to listen to the many different ways people say things to us, even if they are saying something we dont like. if we do, we can make decisions and move along rather than get mired in the muck.

[Nat]

I was listening to a podcast today and found it so interesting that I went ahead and transcribed it as best I could. The reason I'm pasting it here is because I think some of the issues we run into on the site may involve issues of the group mind vs the individual.

------------

Transcribed from Philosophy Bites podcast "Philip Pettit on Group Agency"

"I think of group agents as a subspecies of groups in general. There are groups - their members will have a property in common and so-on, but the feature that makes them a group agent is that they mimic an individual agent in how they behave.

If you take a small group like the three of us - suppose we constitute a group perhaps that meet every evening for a drink. Now in order to constitute a group agent, what would have to be the case that there is some goal or purpose that we together want to advance or further, and equally we form shared views about the best means to advance this goal, about the opportunities, about the sub-goals, about the order of importance, about the sub-goals - and of course we're going to form views about changing the goal, about adding to the goal. We've got to as a group, the three of us, organize ourselves in order to advance a purpose according to certain accounts of how best to advance that purpose. We've got to do together what we all do individually to pursue a goal.

Groups obviously vary enormously in size and enormously in structure. The three of us could be a group. We could develop some political purposes, for example, we're speaking on advancing the green agenda in Oxford. So that's the big goal we might agree on. We then would want sub-goals: what are the important aspects of the green agenda? Keeping the streets clean, keeping the waters clean? We've got to decide on all of these, and then with these things we've got to decide what do we do? Together we've got to agree on an agenda of what we do and a means of doing it, which is just what I as an individual would do if I decided on my own to pursue a green agenda.

There's quite a dominant tradition that says, look, it's just a fashion of speaking to talk about a group as an agent - they are just individual human beings who are agents and they coordinate their actions together. And at a certain level that's true, but it misses something very important, which is: When you ask, "What's the relationship between the goal of a group or the goal or beliefs or the the judgments of the group and the judgments of individuals?" People who take the view that groups are just individuals, they will always answer, "Well, the goals which the group holds - they just answer to the views held by the majority of the members."

When you begin to see what's wrong with that, you get an introduction as to why group agency is an interesting topic.

Let me serve it to you abstractly: Suppose the three of us are involved in having to make a set of judgments and decisions because we want to mimic an individual agent. As we agree, we have to put together our judgments on various matters and also our desires, self-preferences. Suppose for example we've got to put together our judgments on matters like the matter of whether P is the case and the matter of whether Q is the case. The issue is whether then the conjunction of P and Q is the case.

So, it comes to the matter of whether we as a group believe P, guys? Well, here beside me I have David and Nigel. Let's suppose that I think P is the case and David things P is the case, so that's the majority. So Nigel doesn't think P is the case, but that's okay - as a group we believe P.

Okay, then it comes to Q. We vote on Q. It turns out I think that Q also is the case as well as P. David this time rejects it - he doesn't think Q is the case. But you, Nigel, accept that Q is the case. Ah, majority ticked off Q - the group believes Q.

We believe P, we believe Q. Does the group believe P and Q? Ah. The majority rejects P and Q, because I'm the only one who believes P and Q. I believe both P and Q, so I believe P and Q. David doesn't, because he rejected Q. Nigel doesn't, because he rejected P. So as a group, if we follow majority voting, we're stuck with saying we believe P, Q, but reject P and Q. That's a real problem. If we behaved like that, we couldn't operate as a group.

There are many many examples of this. Actually, I became alerted myself to that particular paradox through some legal literature - what is called the doctrinal paradox. I gave it the name, "the discursive delimma," arguing there was a wider problem than you have in the legal case. Let's focus on that paradox - the discursive delimma. Here's an example of it:

Suppose the three of us make up the board of some organization, maybe it's a housing association. Someone comes to us with a complaint against the landlord which is that the heater in his room blew up and caused him great psychological damage or harm. He's brought a complaint against the landlord to us, and the three of us have to decide on that complaint. Imagine now that we have decided in the way courts would decide an issue like this - which is to say the landlord will indeed be liable, he'd be blameworthy, if he had a duty of care in this matter - looking after the heater - and indeed the tenant was actually harmed - he really was traumatized by the blowing up of the heater. If both of those are the case, then we think the landlord is liable or culpable and maybe there's some punishment due to him as a result.

The three of us have to make up our mind on these matters. The first issue - was the tenant traumatized? David and I might agree, like P. And Nigel might think no - but as a group we think yes, he was indeed traumatized by the incident.

Second question: Did the landlord have a duty of care for the heaters and looking after them or was it somebody else maybe in this housing association we're imagining? And let's suppose David thinks no, the landlord didn't have a duty of care, but Nigel thinks he did and I think he did. So again, Q - the landlord had a duty of care - we agree to that as a group.

But now it comes to the issue of do we agree that the landlord should be held culpable, blameworthy? But remember I'm the only one who thought P and Q - that the landlord had a duty of care and that this poor tenant was damaged. Each of you rejected one of those, so you're going to say no to that and I'm going to say yes. Now as a group we are being incoherent.

So as a group, we've got to avoid just forming the group view that answers by majoritarian methods to our individual views. If the three of us are going to behave as a group agent - that means we are going to mimic an individual which means as a group we are going to be capable of advancing purposes, sharing purposes, according to shared representation. We can now see in order to achieve that agency, we have to make sure that our representation of how things are and our purposes are actually consistent. What you've seen from this example is that you can't guarantee they'll be consistent if you just rely on majority voting within the group.

Christian List and I were happily able to establish a more general result which is that there is no simple way of starting with individuals and their views and then determining the group views by the majority vote or any other simple sort of aggregation of those individual views into a group view. You just can't do it.

It is tragic in this sense: it's called an impossibility result. It's impossible to ensure that the views of a group are coherent, that they are rational, that they stand together, that they are consistent - it's impossible to establish that kind of rationality, "collective rationality," let's call it - and at the same time establish another condition which you might call "individual responsiveness." In other words, have the group hold views that are responsible case by case to the views of the individuals.

If we're going to get our act together, say on the housing association example, what we have to do is decide NOT to go by majority views but on some issues to adopt a view as a group that the majority of us actually reject. That is called constructing, as it were, a group mind.

There's actually a very long tradition of recognizing that individual human beings can combine into units or groups which themselves can act like agents, having purposes, having representations, having means of changing these purposes and representations, and being pretty rational and coherent about doing all of that. Although interestingly by the standard history, the Romans and the Greeks for example didn't have that notion of a corporate entity. That suddenly happens in the Middle Ages to answer to realities like the guild or the town or the monastary or the monastic order or whatever. Groups which now have a real salience in this world. And as these groups become salient, the lawyers and the philosophers begin to talk precisely of the artificial person, the persona ficta, some understand it as a pretend person but many as an artificial person. Already in the 1300s there's a strong particularly legal group of people who are arguing that these corporate entities are persons in their own right and that they should be treated as persons, they've got standing in law like persons, they've got property, they have contracts, they can have a mind of their own.

Myself looking at those midieval thinkers, you sort of feel, gosh, they are thinking the same sort of things that I think. But then you move down to the 17th century for example and people like Thomas Hobbes, who begins to think about the State and the Commonwealth in precisely the same way, modeling it as he says "on the company of merchants." Hobbes does something that I think misleads other people for a long time - he suggests that what happens when you do get an incorporation of individuals is that they go by majority voting. That's endorsed also by Locke and by Rouseau when they equally talk about the Commonwealth as an incorporated agent.

They are wrong about that, but after Hobbes, there are two developments really. One development is in actual practice and the other development is in legal theory or philosophical theory.

The development in practice is in the 19th century - the rise of the commercial corporation. Remember that in the early 1700s, corporations were severely limited in English law as a result of the South Sea Bubble and the bad experience there. Things began to loosen up again only in the 1820s and from then on over the next 30 or 40 years, and the same thing happens in America. You get an amazing development in which commercial corporations become capable of more and more and more independence. So the corporation can be formed just by registering it, it can operate in any area within the domain of the legislation, it can change sphere of activity without going to parliament or back to the registry, and you get limited liability of course. And of course, corporations are allowed to own other corporations and to control other corporations, so you get the possibility of a whole biomass of corporate entities, which is what we've been experiencing over the last 200 years.

The conceptual development - very interesting things happen. One is that a preeminently german thinker Arthur Gilke? goes back to the medieval sources and develops a whole theory of corporate entities - churches and commercial corporations and political parties and states and so on - about how these corporate entities have got a life of their own, are "real persons" - a phrase used - and that becomes highly influential. Unfortunately as I think, that whole development, this new sort of interest, philosophical, theoretical interest in corporations, in corporate agents - that all gets held up because it becomes associated in the popular mind with fascism, because they talk the language of corporations, of corporate entities a lot and so in the fight against fascism, intellectual and otherwise, you get a cult of what comes to be called "individualism" which is taken mistakenly to commit us to thinking there are no such things as group agents. Frankly, I think we are only recovering in a way from that triumph mid-century of a line that said "there are no group agents, there are only individual agents." Of course there are group agents."