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.

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.

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.

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.

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, 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...

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.

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!

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.

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/

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.

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