Two things you've heard me waffle on about lately, one way and another, are the pitfalls of advice (both giving and receiving it) and the difficulties we humans have communicating, despite sharing a complex language. Both of these play a role in the phenomenon I'm about to discuss.
When somebody asks for advice, and then ignores it, repeatedly, how do we respond to this situation?
There are several things at play here.
The first problem is that we are not really sure of their motives.
I share a personality quirk that is usually a criticism women make about men. That I rush to try and problem-solve when a problem is presented to me. I even know why. I don't "do" spare time - leisure - in a big way. I'm a workaholic, albeit my definition of work being quite broad. That's a separate matter and not relevant here, but in what little leisure time I take, that I define as strictly leisure time, I like PUZZLES. Crossword puzzles, jigsaw puzzles, and "real life" puzzles. I'd sooner read or watch a detective story than any other genre. Even if I'm tired. Most of all, I like SOLVING puzzles. Humans are puzzles. Human with problems are better puzzles.
Unfortunately, humans with problems don't always seek a solution. What they seek first (or at all) is sympathy. I've even tried putting a sticky note on my computer screen that says "SYMPATHIZE FIRST, solve later". I still forget. Those closest to me know me well enough to put up with my problem-solving and crass lack of sympathy, but it's a pretty sorry state when I'm having to be taught by my Aspie son. He learned to do it, and if he can then surely anyone can, and he shakes his head at me when I get it wrong again. And again. Every time. (I think I'm getting better at it. A bit.)
Therefore, we must bear in mind that there can be an element of misunderstanding involved when a person appears to be seeking advice, but is really seeking sympathy.
However, I'm not the only person who experiences this. Many of those who have talked with me about it are very good with the sympathy first, and some are even almost exclusively sympathetic people, leaving advice mostly for others.
The second problem is that having given the advice requested, we may wrongly assume it was heard. And I don't mean heard as in sound arriving at its destination. I mean heard as in absorbed into the thinking parts of the recipient's brain. We have all had conversations after which we say "I don't think he heard me at all".
In many ways this falls under the heading of "when the student is ready, the teacher appears". Students who are not ready still sometimes seek out teachers.
The third problem is that sometimes people who appear to be asking YOU for advice are really only thinking out loud. They are asking themselves for advice, and while they may be trawling ideas from all and sundry, they were never going to take anyone else's ideas seriously. The fact that they are solving their own problems is great, the way they do it just confuses the hell out of the rest of us. But we are social creatures. Using friends as a sounding board, even if you are really talking to the sky, is OK. It's the repetition of it that wears us down.
And let's face it, sometimes people just talk rubbish. They really just flap their gums. Maybe they don't get much chance to talk to other people. Maybe they are just naturally chatty. And maybe this sometimes takes the form of sounding like asking advice when in fact it never was anything of the sort.
Now like I said, I'm an analytical person. I analyze everything and then I analyze why I analyze. I think it's far better than either worrying or not giving a shit. Analyzing leads to useful, positive action, and can solve a lot of problems, which worrying and apathy don't.
But it's a waste of my analysis if the person who comes to me for advice, over and over again, completely ignores what I say. So I tire of it. Regardless of their motives or intent, or any hidden agendas, my patience wears out. I find myself ignoring them, posting smiley faces instead of suggestions, making light of it...ANYTHING in fact to avoid coming right out and saying "For fuck's sake, I've told you twenty times already, either pay attention or shut up." Because that's not nice. I aim to be nicer than that. And assuming the person isn't a Psychic Vampire in which case ignoring them is the correct thing to do, there has to be a better way, doesn't there?
Tom, who is a genius, came up with a suggestion. "Tell them you don't know". Now, why didn't I think of that.
By saying "I don't know", you appear to completely contradict yourself, because previously you've offered solid solutions (hopefully).
If they really weren't paying attention/were not seeking a solution in the first place, this won't really mean anything much. If they think to themselves "hang on, she had a solution last time!" it may jolt them into realization. But whatever the result, it saves you a lot of effort which would have gone to waste. It may end the conversation, it may disappoint them, it may even (with any luck) strike you off their list of go-to people. You can still be sympathetic, but it shouldn't take so long.
I hereby announce, therefore, that in future, this will be my tactic. If you notice I am smiling and saying "there, there" a lot, which seems very out of character, you know why. This will of course be far more amusing for observers than for recipients. I think most of you reading this are observers. Try it yourself too, let me know how you get on.
Thursday, 9 May 2013
I Was Never........
.......A Hippy
I've been called one many times, and in many ways I had a childhood that leaned that way. It was a very muesli and yoghurt sort of upbringing. So, let's say I was exposed to, and open to some of the culture of the late sixties.
But I fail hippyhood in two vital areas. I've never indulged in any drug other than alcohol, no, not even once. Shocks most people but there it is. And, I have a very deep work ethic. It's no good telling me that the stereotype of the lazy hippy is a complete misunderstanding. I do, actually, understand the alternative lifestyle approach to work, the philosophy behind it. I just don't find it very practical.
In the mid-seventies, my favourite pirate Radio Station started promoting a philosophy of Loving Awareness which horrified some of its listeners, and endeared others. As this was during my teen formative years, there was definitely an effect on me from hearing about that daily, but I didn't acually research it, or really "get" it, until many years later.
........A Buddhist
There are many aspects of Buddhist beliefs that I like, approve of, and even take on board, but I could never follow any structured religion, not even that one. As a general Pagan, I could never even follow Wicca. I'm not a follower. I like this, and I like that, and I just cobble it all together. Buddhism as a philsophy rather than a religion has plenty to offer, and it's from there I find some good stuff, and some stuff that simply doesn't work for me.
One of the things that I really like then, is the teachings about Awareness aka Mindfulness. In recent years this has become an important part of both philosophy and psychology beyond the boundaries of Buddhism. Obviously it always existed in the west, in various forms of contemplation, but the fact that we are talking about it and seeing how important it is now shows just how much we need it. In fact, there is an awareness of Awareness.
If you've never given this much thought, you may not really understand what I'm talking about. Of course you are aware. You are a sentient creature. You see, hear, taste, smell, and feel. You remember things, and you analyze. Some of you even talk of extra senses, of a metaphysical kind, and in fact most people also have a very vague idea of a sixth sense, be it "hunches", or knowing somebody is standing behind you when you didn't see or hear them approach. Animal instincts. Whatever.
This is nothing to do with any of that.
This is a deliberate and methodical approach to listening (or reading) whereby the words permeate deeper. This is way of using those senses above to be more than just a spectator of life. In many ways it is a return to a childlike view of the world, where everything is greeted as new and interesting, every moment is felt to the full, and always on the mind is the question "why?".
This is taking in information, and not just parsing it. This is receiving data with the intent of understanding, no matter how difficult that is, and of using that data to conduct oneself in the best way possible.
So far, so good. Most people I discuss this with are good up until now, see the value in it, are willing to try harder to achieve it, and so on. What usually causes them to lose interest, reject any further notions, pull back, or raise objections is my insistence that YOU MUST MEDITATE.
Because you really must.
I will stop here, and continue tomorrow so that you have time to argue with me that you don't need to/can't meditate. Then we'll continue.
I've been called one many times, and in many ways I had a childhood that leaned that way. It was a very muesli and yoghurt sort of upbringing. So, let's say I was exposed to, and open to some of the culture of the late sixties.
But I fail hippyhood in two vital areas. I've never indulged in any drug other than alcohol, no, not even once. Shocks most people but there it is. And, I have a very deep work ethic. It's no good telling me that the stereotype of the lazy hippy is a complete misunderstanding. I do, actually, understand the alternative lifestyle approach to work, the philosophy behind it. I just don't find it very practical.
In the mid-seventies, my favourite pirate Radio Station started promoting a philosophy of Loving Awareness which horrified some of its listeners, and endeared others. As this was during my teen formative years, there was definitely an effect on me from hearing about that daily, but I didn't acually research it, or really "get" it, until many years later.
........A Buddhist
There are many aspects of Buddhist beliefs that I like, approve of, and even take on board, but I could never follow any structured religion, not even that one. As a general Pagan, I could never even follow Wicca. I'm not a follower. I like this, and I like that, and I just cobble it all together. Buddhism as a philsophy rather than a religion has plenty to offer, and it's from there I find some good stuff, and some stuff that simply doesn't work for me.
One of the things that I really like then, is the teachings about Awareness aka Mindfulness. In recent years this has become an important part of both philosophy and psychology beyond the boundaries of Buddhism. Obviously it always existed in the west, in various forms of contemplation, but the fact that we are talking about it and seeing how important it is now shows just how much we need it. In fact, there is an awareness of Awareness.
If you've never given this much thought, you may not really understand what I'm talking about. Of course you are aware. You are a sentient creature. You see, hear, taste, smell, and feel. You remember things, and you analyze. Some of you even talk of extra senses, of a metaphysical kind, and in fact most people also have a very vague idea of a sixth sense, be it "hunches", or knowing somebody is standing behind you when you didn't see or hear them approach. Animal instincts. Whatever.
This is nothing to do with any of that.
This is a deliberate and methodical approach to listening (or reading) whereby the words permeate deeper. This is way of using those senses above to be more than just a spectator of life. In many ways it is a return to a childlike view of the world, where everything is greeted as new and interesting, every moment is felt to the full, and always on the mind is the question "why?".
This is taking in information, and not just parsing it. This is receiving data with the intent of understanding, no matter how difficult that is, and of using that data to conduct oneself in the best way possible.
So far, so good. Most people I discuss this with are good up until now, see the value in it, are willing to try harder to achieve it, and so on. What usually causes them to lose interest, reject any further notions, pull back, or raise objections is my insistence that YOU MUST MEDITATE.
Because you really must.
I will stop here, and continue tomorrow so that you have time to argue with me that you don't need to/can't meditate. Then we'll continue.
Wednesday, 8 May 2013
Michael's Shock
Living with me, it's not possible to grow up "unaware". My kids all have a very keen sense of ethics, far more so than I did at that age. They are all different in their levels of outrage, and each have areas they are more passionate about.
James is the most conservative of my children, which surprises many people because he's also been the most rebellious. We have rather heated discussions because of this, and it's wonderful, because he can articulate his thoughts well.
But Michael - oh Michael. Michael is my activist. Michael has an opinion on everything, and will take a stand. If there's a protest, he's involved.
Now I'm not saying the others won't speak out, they will. Alex is a pacifist but when pushed he'll show his true colours. Rhiannon is a Spitfire. Sian is more of a Hurricane... (British warplane joke, hope everone got that). My girls are not meek women. Blink. No. And Tom says his piece too.
But Michael....oh Michael.
Michael is so much like me that it scares me. Only more so, I think.
So, yesterday he came home shocked. They'd had a touring speaker visit to the school, a lesbian musician (sorry, didn't catch the name) to do a presentation to students about the Gay-Straight Alliance (read more about it here) and he was a bit concerned about the reaction some of his friends would have. He was then horrified at what actually transpired.
Michael has been taught to be tolerant of religious differences. So he has two friends who are fundamentalist Christians, and we'll call them X and Y.
X is the more extremist of the two. How they even remain friends baffles me.
But it was Y who was the problem. She could not accept this speaker. X, the usually more intolerant one, "got it". That we all have to work together, despite our differences. That there is no place for hate, especially not in our schools, and that by making an effort to understand and support one another at that age leads to a better world as students go out into it.
Y was immovable. Neither wise Michael, or newly (suddenly?) tolerant co-fundie X could get her past her prejudices, and allow the message to be heard.
Instead of shrugging and giving up, Michael came home with a little stormcloud over his head, and couldn't move on, not even at dinner. He intends to re-double his efforts to convince Y that she is the one with the problem. This is no longer a religious issue. X got it. That's what shocked him. He thought this was a black and white matter. That the religious right would be anti, but when it was much more individual that that, it rocked him to the core.
I think that's the "location" of the differences between people. Core values. This is how people with different religious beliefs, different political beliefs, and so on, can have plenty in common, can work together, can get along, and can BE FRIENDS, because deep inside their values are the same.
Michael is shocked that someone he called a friend, is unable to share his personal value. He is questioning the friendship. This is not easy stuff, especially at 16, but it's probably going to be something that he looks back on his whole life.
So I listened, didn't say much, just praised him for thinking it all through carefully, and tonight we'll tackle moral relativism.
James is the most conservative of my children, which surprises many people because he's also been the most rebellious. We have rather heated discussions because of this, and it's wonderful, because he can articulate his thoughts well.
But Michael - oh Michael. Michael is my activist. Michael has an opinion on everything, and will take a stand. If there's a protest, he's involved.
Now I'm not saying the others won't speak out, they will. Alex is a pacifist but when pushed he'll show his true colours. Rhiannon is a Spitfire. Sian is more of a Hurricane... (British warplane joke, hope everone got that). My girls are not meek women. Blink. No. And Tom says his piece too.
But Michael....oh Michael.
Michael is so much like me that it scares me. Only more so, I think.
So, yesterday he came home shocked. They'd had a touring speaker visit to the school, a lesbian musician (sorry, didn't catch the name) to do a presentation to students about the Gay-Straight Alliance (read more about it here) and he was a bit concerned about the reaction some of his friends would have. He was then horrified at what actually transpired.
Michael has been taught to be tolerant of religious differences. So he has two friends who are fundamentalist Christians, and we'll call them X and Y.
X is the more extremist of the two. How they even remain friends baffles me.
But it was Y who was the problem. She could not accept this speaker. X, the usually more intolerant one, "got it". That we all have to work together, despite our differences. That there is no place for hate, especially not in our schools, and that by making an effort to understand and support one another at that age leads to a better world as students go out into it.
Y was immovable. Neither wise Michael, or newly (suddenly?) tolerant co-fundie X could get her past her prejudices, and allow the message to be heard.
Instead of shrugging and giving up, Michael came home with a little stormcloud over his head, and couldn't move on, not even at dinner. He intends to re-double his efforts to convince Y that she is the one with the problem. This is no longer a religious issue. X got it. That's what shocked him. He thought this was a black and white matter. That the religious right would be anti, but when it was much more individual that that, it rocked him to the core.
I think that's the "location" of the differences between people. Core values. This is how people with different religious beliefs, different political beliefs, and so on, can have plenty in common, can work together, can get along, and can BE FRIENDS, because deep inside their values are the same.
Michael is shocked that someone he called a friend, is unable to share his personal value. He is questioning the friendship. This is not easy stuff, especially at 16, but it's probably going to be something that he looks back on his whole life.
So I listened, didn't say much, just praised him for thinking it all through carefully, and tonight we'll tackle moral relativism.
Talk To Me - 10 - What Do You Mean By Awareness?
It's something I talk about a lot, but I'm sure it's not understood by a lot of people.
I've just been discussing on Facebook the phenomenon of clothing for young children with animal ears etc, as part of the garment. It has been a very common sight in the last few years, so much so that the friend I was discussing it with said she had bought the least offensive ones she could find, because that's all there was available.
I hate them. Yes, even the hats. Yes, I know they are popular. If your child loves hats with ears on, power to him, but if he's not old enough to decide that, and/or it was bought so you could laugh, please consider me giving you "the look".
The last time I mentioned this I was told that it was "just a bit of fun", and I am fully aware that no harm is intended. That's my whole point.
Having a bit of fun at somebody else's expense is not a very nice thing. Putting bunny ears on your baby does no harm, but the mindset behind it is dark and ugly. Would you do it to a mentally disabled adult? No? What's the difference?
And now you're squirming, reading this, because although you don't agree with me, I'm poking in places where people aren't supposed to poke. The very grey areas around ethics where THERE IS NO CONSENSUS, and it's all a matter of opinion.
You don't have to agree, what you have to do is think about it. And that is what nobody wants to do.
I have lost count of the times I have been told to get over it, or to stop being a spoilsport, or that I'm being "anal", or that I'm no fun when I inconveniently suggest there may be an ethical angle to decisions being made.
I have been told that I'm too serious, or too analytical, or that life is too short to worry about details.
And every single time I'm told this, it's because I'm poking in that grey area, the one that will always cause controversy, always.
In fact, as soon as I hear "oh get over it", I know I touched a nerve. I know I made it so that a person would have to examine their motives, or go beyond having a bit of fun. I know that when I don't smile at the racist joke, and cause discomfort, and get told I have no sense of humour, it's because I burst the bubble, I stepped on the freedom to speak without care.
I am a shit disturber. This is my own personal agony area of deciding when to speak and when not to. It is when manners come smack up against ethics.
Is my aim to make others change their minds?
Sometimes. I don't live under any delusion that I'm always right, or that even if I am, that I have any ability to sway the opinion of others. But certainly, in an example like not smiling at the racist joke, I hold out hope that my disapproval might sink in.
What my real aim is, is not to be swept along with the tide, not to be one of the non-thinkers.
Awareness is the first step in ethical behaviour. It is also a step in being purposeful when being combative. Even if you intend to speak out, to criticize, to take a stand and do so with sharp wit or sarcasm, first you have to decide where your limits are, where you won't go.
I do have a sense of humour, actually. I'm well-known for being "funny". Many funny people, over the years have made their points well through their comedy, and I am a great fan of those who do. But some of them have got it wrong sometimes, they've gone too far.
Denis Leary is famously quoted for saying:
"There is a huge boom in autism right now because inattentive mothers and competitive dads want an explanation for why their dumb-ass kids can't compete academically, so they throw money into the happy laps of shrinks... to get back diagnoses that help explain away the deficiencies of their junior morons. I don't care what these crackerjack whack jobs tell you — your kid is not autistic. He's just stupid. Or lazy. Or both."
He was forced to apologize for offence caused, and to say that it was quoted out of context. He said that "....he had been talking about the trend of unwarranted overdiagnosis of autism, which he attributed to American parents seeking an excuse for behavioural problems and underperformance."
He made a grave error of judgement of saying what he did, no matter what he meant.
When we have something controversial to say, we have to say it so that it will be heard. So that any opposition only comes from those who oppose what we really have to say.
Choosing your words carefully is part of awareness - awareness of potential reaction. Once the ambiguous words are out, the fallout from them will obscure your intent. Once you have a reputation for shooting your mouth off, your potential for being listened to, or at least taken seriously, is lost. A version of crying wolf applies.
This is the finest of distinctions between when to speak and when not to. And awareness is your guide. Awareness of implications, awareness of reactions, and awareness of lack of awareness.
You must have control over what you say. The English have a saying "Engage brain before opening gob". Engaging your brain is awareness. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.
Language is the most powerful thing we have, and we take it for granted. Both the spoken and written language is treated with considerable disdain, lazy speech and lazy writing lead to problems over and over again.
That's my final comment (for now) on communication, but I plan to write more about Awareness as a whole.
I've just been discussing on Facebook the phenomenon of clothing for young children with animal ears etc, as part of the garment. It has been a very common sight in the last few years, so much so that the friend I was discussing it with said she had bought the least offensive ones she could find, because that's all there was available.
I hate them. Yes, even the hats. Yes, I know they are popular. If your child loves hats with ears on, power to him, but if he's not old enough to decide that, and/or it was bought so you could laugh, please consider me giving you "the look".
The last time I mentioned this I was told that it was "just a bit of fun", and I am fully aware that no harm is intended. That's my whole point.
Having a bit of fun at somebody else's expense is not a very nice thing. Putting bunny ears on your baby does no harm, but the mindset behind it is dark and ugly. Would you do it to a mentally disabled adult? No? What's the difference?
And now you're squirming, reading this, because although you don't agree with me, I'm poking in places where people aren't supposed to poke. The very grey areas around ethics where THERE IS NO CONSENSUS, and it's all a matter of opinion.
You don't have to agree, what you have to do is think about it. And that is what nobody wants to do.
I have lost count of the times I have been told to get over it, or to stop being a spoilsport, or that I'm being "anal", or that I'm no fun when I inconveniently suggest there may be an ethical angle to decisions being made.
I have been told that I'm too serious, or too analytical, or that life is too short to worry about details.
And every single time I'm told this, it's because I'm poking in that grey area, the one that will always cause controversy, always.
In fact, as soon as I hear "oh get over it", I know I touched a nerve. I know I made it so that a person would have to examine their motives, or go beyond having a bit of fun. I know that when I don't smile at the racist joke, and cause discomfort, and get told I have no sense of humour, it's because I burst the bubble, I stepped on the freedom to speak without care.
I am a shit disturber. This is my own personal agony area of deciding when to speak and when not to. It is when manners come smack up against ethics.
Is my aim to make others change their minds?
Sometimes. I don't live under any delusion that I'm always right, or that even if I am, that I have any ability to sway the opinion of others. But certainly, in an example like not smiling at the racist joke, I hold out hope that my disapproval might sink in.
What my real aim is, is not to be swept along with the tide, not to be one of the non-thinkers.
Awareness is the first step in ethical behaviour. It is also a step in being purposeful when being combative. Even if you intend to speak out, to criticize, to take a stand and do so with sharp wit or sarcasm, first you have to decide where your limits are, where you won't go.
I do have a sense of humour, actually. I'm well-known for being "funny". Many funny people, over the years have made their points well through their comedy, and I am a great fan of those who do. But some of them have got it wrong sometimes, they've gone too far.
Denis Leary is famously quoted for saying:
"There is a huge boom in autism right now because inattentive mothers and competitive dads want an explanation for why their dumb-ass kids can't compete academically, so they throw money into the happy laps of shrinks... to get back diagnoses that help explain away the deficiencies of their junior morons. I don't care what these crackerjack whack jobs tell you — your kid is not autistic. He's just stupid. Or lazy. Or both."
He was forced to apologize for offence caused, and to say that it was quoted out of context. He said that "....he had been talking about the trend of unwarranted overdiagnosis of autism, which he attributed to American parents seeking an excuse for behavioural problems and underperformance."
He made a grave error of judgement of saying what he did, no matter what he meant.
When we have something controversial to say, we have to say it so that it will be heard. So that any opposition only comes from those who oppose what we really have to say.
Choosing your words carefully is part of awareness - awareness of potential reaction. Once the ambiguous words are out, the fallout from them will obscure your intent. Once you have a reputation for shooting your mouth off, your potential for being listened to, or at least taken seriously, is lost. A version of crying wolf applies.
This is the finest of distinctions between when to speak and when not to. And awareness is your guide. Awareness of implications, awareness of reactions, and awareness of lack of awareness.
You must have control over what you say. The English have a saying "Engage brain before opening gob". Engaging your brain is awareness. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.
Language is the most powerful thing we have, and we take it for granted. Both the spoken and written language is treated with considerable disdain, lazy speech and lazy writing lead to problems over and over again.
That's my final comment (for now) on communication, but I plan to write more about Awareness as a whole.
Tuesday, 7 May 2013
Talk To Me - 9 - Good, Clear Communication
So, when should we not speak?
A wise old owl lived in an oak
The more he saw the less he spoke
The less he spoke the more he heard.
Why can't we all be like that wise old bird?
The more he saw the less he spoke
The less he spoke the more he heard.
Why can't we all be like that wise old bird?
One of the times is when we should be listening, instead.
The object of communication is to understand one another. Listening is far more important than speaking, if you want to learn things. But if you never speak, others won't learn about you.
Ideally then, it would be 50-50. It may take a bit of effort to achieve that, and listening involves more than simply not talking. It's always good to take a few moments to remember why you are conversing with another person at all. If we assume it is to solve or avoid problems, listening is the first step. Really listening.
There is a shared responsibility, I believe, in clear communication, whether written or spoken. Both the speaker and the listener must make an effort.
If we stick to the truth, avoid offence, and stay calm and civil, it should be possible to communicate clearly, provided the other party is listening, and will do the same when their turn to speak comes. So why do people spend so much time verbally sparring?
I think it's because we get this aspect of it wrong. We speak when we shouldn't, and don't speak when we should. In my final analysis of poor communication, it comes down to this. While what we say, and even the way we say it is important, we do somehow manage to forgive and get over lies, harsh words, and even mistakes, we forget. But we never learn from our mistakes. We repeat the insults. We rise to anger again. We say what shouldn't be said, or at least don't phrase it well. Over and over and over. Verbal diarrhoea of knee-jerk reactions, and a complete and utter lack of well thought out words.
Is it any wonder really? We spend much of our lives reading and watching rubbish media instead of good literature and educational presentations. The reason that the Ancient Greeks managed to sit and articulate deep, lasting wisdom, was because they hadn't melted their brains on tabloid chat shows and sensationalist journalism. We talk in clichés and become brainwashed by advertising, and then seem surprised when the younger members of our society can't make wise choices. What do they have as role models?
In order to communicate we must reach a certain level of awareness. Talking does NOT equate to communicating, and hearing does not equate to listening. Both what we say, and what we keep our silence on are important, but to decide which it is going to be requires a level of thinking that most people are just to lazy to bother with. Instead they say the first thing that comes into their head, and then expect everyone to accept their apologies later. And because nobody was listening properly anyway, they may even get away with it.
I'm not greatly impressed with the levels of human communication I see around me, and I am convinced it is due to people simply not paying attention to the problem. Above all I see tolerance being extremely one-sided quite often, and rather selective. I see black people speaking hate about gay people, and vice versa, and I see the most appalling religious bias. Much of this could be fixed, or at least lessened, if people communicated.
I get teased (and I probably deserve it) for being a bit pedantic about grammar. But it's the thin end of the wedge. If we pay attention to the actual words we write and speak, it is all part of the awareness of how vital it is to communicate well.
If we brush these things aside with a "TSK, you know what I mean!" I am forced ask, "well do I?"
If I hear, as I often do, "I didn't mean what I said", then I am forced to wonder if anything you say at all can be reliable.
What I see is a lot of blundering around, instead of stopping, thinking, and concentrating. What I'm seeing is a distinct lack of awareness. So I guess I'll have to talk about that next.
Talk To Me - 8 - Taciturn
When I was a child there was a "crime" talked about, called "dumb insolence". It came from the military but was popular among parents and schoolteachers as a way of insisting that a child speak up when accused of something. We are so used to the idea of having the right to remain silent when arrested that we forget that this right does not exist everywhere. In many situations saying nothing will get you into a lot of trouble.
Saying nothing, or at least very little, can be a good strategy. Great care is needed in holding back though. Just as you can potentially say too much (especially if it's the wrong thing), you can also say too little, it's a very fine balance.
But it's an art we all have to practice. Less can often be more in situations where intense feelings are being expressed, and choosing your words carefully can avoid exacerbating a disagreement.
Just in time for me to write this blog, a friend came round yesterday evening, to escape his wife. She is prone to a bad temper and vicious tongue, and over the years we have heard many stories of her haranguing him. He developed long ago an attitude of not caring, and a way of tuning it all out and making himself very busy. It wouldn't be my idea of a marriage or a home environment, I like harmony, but every family is different, and it's none of my business. I just listen sympathetically and wonder why the hell he hasn't left her.
And, over the years, his ability to ignore her has become second nature, so that it washes right over him, and he hardly notices it anymore.
His daughter, on the other hand, having left home for a while but returned to the nest, is acutely aware of it, and speaks out. "Why do you have to be so NASTY?" she asks her mother. Our friends smiles to himself and leaves them to it.
I find the situation tragic, but there it is. He has a strategy to cope with her bitching, he ignores it. The less he says, the easier his life is. That's how he copes. Could I do it? I doubt it. But I suppose you do what you have to do. It becomes a survival tactic.
There are many reasons for saying very little:
https://socialreader.com/me/channels/70826/content/LQ9GX
I am a sociable person, and an open person. There's not much about me that I don't share with the whole world, when the occasion arises. However, in a curious twist of expectation, because I don't express my feelings much, I have been accused of being "guarded". Which is quite wrong. I'm just not very complex! What you see is what you get. It actually took a long time for the light bulb to go on, for me to realise that those who find me inscrutable are projecting their own complexitites. Took me a long time to figure that out. Let's digress a minute.
People delight but confuse me. I became a "people watcher" when I realised I was getting it all terribly wrong. That some people were shy, rather than rude, and that quite often a domineering person is very insecure. This is all stuff you are supposed to learn when growing up, but I was surrounded by essentially honest and decent people, nobody played mind games on me (or if they tried, I was blissfully unaware of it) and I will tell you right here and now that I matured socially rather later than average.
I am so "simple" and straightforward, in fact, that for a long time I failed to be naturally suspicious of those who don't speak their minds, and it's a miracle I was never tricked, because I tend to take people as I find them. Some sort of Spidey sense offers a back-up, I guess, because I was never actually gullible. It's an odd combination of innocence and streetsmart, and I can't explain it, but there it is. Intellect intervenes, I guess.
But it took me a long time to learn not to be too damn honest. (Note: I'm not sure I've altogether ever got past this). When I look back over my life I can pinpoint quite a few times that saying nothing, or at least less, or by lying, frankly, I could have kept myself out of trouble. But it never occurred to me at the time.
OK, so back to now, here I am in middle-age, considerably the wiser, and still having to make a concerted effort much of the time in keeping my mouth shut. Speaking my mind is my natural reaction.
I have a "busy" mind; I analyze. Again, some of this was a process I had to teach myself, because the realities of life require it. I would really be quite content to work in the garden and think "Om" but I am also very grounded and practical, so I figure things out, because somebody has to. They say people are divided between dreamers, planners, and doers, but I find that in fact, to get on in life you need to be all three.
I learned, from mistakes, that sometimes you just HAVE TO SHUT UP. That words, once said, can never be withdrawn, and sometimes people have extraordinary long memories. I would like to now stop and pray.
Oh yes. I hereby prostrate myself at the feet of any and all deities reading this blog, from all religious traditions - because I'm not picky - and offer thanks, and you shall have betel nuts Ganesh dear fellow, and I'll light candles, and bring flowers to the altar, and burn incense, and dance and anything you like........I am HUMBLY AND DEEPLY GRATEFUL that other people don't have a memory like mine.
Oh yes. I bow my head.
The only thing that has kept me from being in far deeper doo-doo than I ever managed to get myself in, the only way I avoided total humiliation, the only way I'm not despised by everyone who ever met me, is because they forget things I've said.
It doesn't work the other way around, I'm afraid, and THIS is probably what has saved my arse too.
I remember everything important anyone ever said to me. Important to me, that is. In every conversation since I could speak. Not in detail of course (although occasionally word for word, actually) but every salient point, every deep feeling expressed, every strong opinion offered. I forget things YOU think are important, like whether you take sugar in your coffee, and I'll probably forget to offer you coffee.
But if, in 1984, you told me that you didn't trust your sister, I have remembered it. If in 1977 you said you believed in fairies, I remembered it. If in 1966 (yes Graham) you admitted to stealing 2 shillings from your mother's purse, I have remembered it.
It's not intentional, it's just a sort of information glue-trap. I'll probably pay for it later and go totally gaga in later life.
Anyway, the point is, as a result of this, I hear people contradict themselves.
So........some years ago, having:
1. Been born with a very simple, uncomplicated personality.
2. Been born with a glue-trap memory.
3. Been born with a quick, analytical mind.
4. Been born with an inability to keep my effing mouth shut.
I called somebody out on a contradiction. "But you once said................"
And I got such a telling off. A friendship ended that day. I was told, and rightly so, that people are entitled to change their stance on things, and that people often say things they don't mean.
But what I actually heard, and for the first time possibly, was what wasn't said.
I heard "I feel ashamed of what I said, wish I hadn't said it, and hoped nobody would remember".
So there you have two examples of when not speaking would have been far better all rolled up into one anecdote, and how Melanie learned to "read between the lines".
Will I ever learn to keep my thoughts to myself? Probably not. In fact the way I have written this article, from a very personal perspective, is probably a mistake. AND I assume you'll remember it, although you probably won't, but I will.
There has been formal research done that shows it is much, much easier to remember the truth than it is to remember a lie. This is cited as yet another reason why lying is a bad idea.
So now I'd like to examine the idea that withholding the truth is the same as lying.
I've blogged before about tact, and I can't find it, so I'm going to repeat myself here, but you won't remember what I wrote before......
(EDIT: Found it!)
http://chovblog.blogspot.ca/2013/02/tact.html
Tact is avoiding saying something that you know will cause offence. The problem, right there, is in knowing what will cause offence. Not the same as not knowing what makes you an idiot, it would not be tactless to tell me I spell offence wrong, it would show your ignorance, q.v. British spelling. Just to nip that in the bud. But that's the problem in a nutshell. What sometimes looks like tactlessness is just ignorance.
Sometimes people say things they shouldn't deliberately. For sure. But I believe much of the time, there's not really any process of decision involved, they just blurt it out. We can then choose to forgive this, heat of the moment and all that.
I am not so sure about that. If I can be tactful, then anyone can. It may not be easy to hold back, it may be very tempting to speak your mind, and believe me I know. But there are times when it really is better to bite your tongue.
And sometimes it isn't.
Back to balance then. How the bleep do we discern? It's so complicated.
I'll wind this up tomorrow, but I leave you with an example of how saying hardly anything spoke volumes.
Saying nothing, or at least very little, can be a good strategy. Great care is needed in holding back though. Just as you can potentially say too much (especially if it's the wrong thing), you can also say too little, it's a very fine balance.
But it's an art we all have to practice. Less can often be more in situations where intense feelings are being expressed, and choosing your words carefully can avoid exacerbating a disagreement.
Just in time for me to write this blog, a friend came round yesterday evening, to escape his wife. She is prone to a bad temper and vicious tongue, and over the years we have heard many stories of her haranguing him. He developed long ago an attitude of not caring, and a way of tuning it all out and making himself very busy. It wouldn't be my idea of a marriage or a home environment, I like harmony, but every family is different, and it's none of my business. I just listen sympathetically and wonder why the hell he hasn't left her.
And, over the years, his ability to ignore her has become second nature, so that it washes right over him, and he hardly notices it anymore.
His daughter, on the other hand, having left home for a while but returned to the nest, is acutely aware of it, and speaks out. "Why do you have to be so NASTY?" she asks her mother. Our friends smiles to himself and leaves them to it.
I find the situation tragic, but there it is. He has a strategy to cope with her bitching, he ignores it. The less he says, the easier his life is. That's how he copes. Could I do it? I doubt it. But I suppose you do what you have to do. It becomes a survival tactic.
There are many reasons for saying very little:
https://socialreader.com/me/channels/70826/content/LQ9GX
I am a sociable person, and an open person. There's not much about me that I don't share with the whole world, when the occasion arises. However, in a curious twist of expectation, because I don't express my feelings much, I have been accused of being "guarded". Which is quite wrong. I'm just not very complex! What you see is what you get. It actually took a long time for the light bulb to go on, for me to realise that those who find me inscrutable are projecting their own complexitites. Took me a long time to figure that out. Let's digress a minute.
People delight but confuse me. I became a "people watcher" when I realised I was getting it all terribly wrong. That some people were shy, rather than rude, and that quite often a domineering person is very insecure. This is all stuff you are supposed to learn when growing up, but I was surrounded by essentially honest and decent people, nobody played mind games on me (or if they tried, I was blissfully unaware of it) and I will tell you right here and now that I matured socially rather later than average.
I am so "simple" and straightforward, in fact, that for a long time I failed to be naturally suspicious of those who don't speak their minds, and it's a miracle I was never tricked, because I tend to take people as I find them. Some sort of Spidey sense offers a back-up, I guess, because I was never actually gullible. It's an odd combination of innocence and streetsmart, and I can't explain it, but there it is. Intellect intervenes, I guess.
But it took me a long time to learn not to be too damn honest. (Note: I'm not sure I've altogether ever got past this). When I look back over my life I can pinpoint quite a few times that saying nothing, or at least less, or by lying, frankly, I could have kept myself out of trouble. But it never occurred to me at the time.
OK, so back to now, here I am in middle-age, considerably the wiser, and still having to make a concerted effort much of the time in keeping my mouth shut. Speaking my mind is my natural reaction.
I have a "busy" mind; I analyze. Again, some of this was a process I had to teach myself, because the realities of life require it. I would really be quite content to work in the garden and think "Om" but I am also very grounded and practical, so I figure things out, because somebody has to. They say people are divided between dreamers, planners, and doers, but I find that in fact, to get on in life you need to be all three.
I learned, from mistakes, that sometimes you just HAVE TO SHUT UP. That words, once said, can never be withdrawn, and sometimes people have extraordinary long memories. I would like to now stop and pray.
Oh yes. I hereby prostrate myself at the feet of any and all deities reading this blog, from all religious traditions - because I'm not picky - and offer thanks, and you shall have betel nuts Ganesh dear fellow, and I'll light candles, and bring flowers to the altar, and burn incense, and dance and anything you like........I am HUMBLY AND DEEPLY GRATEFUL that other people don't have a memory like mine.
Oh yes. I bow my head.
The only thing that has kept me from being in far deeper doo-doo than I ever managed to get myself in, the only way I avoided total humiliation, the only way I'm not despised by everyone who ever met me, is because they forget things I've said.
It doesn't work the other way around, I'm afraid, and THIS is probably what has saved my arse too.
I remember everything important anyone ever said to me. Important to me, that is. In every conversation since I could speak. Not in detail of course (although occasionally word for word, actually) but every salient point, every deep feeling expressed, every strong opinion offered. I forget things YOU think are important, like whether you take sugar in your coffee, and I'll probably forget to offer you coffee.
But if, in 1984, you told me that you didn't trust your sister, I have remembered it. If in 1977 you said you believed in fairies, I remembered it. If in 1966 (yes Graham) you admitted to stealing 2 shillings from your mother's purse, I have remembered it.
It's not intentional, it's just a sort of information glue-trap. I'll probably pay for it later and go totally gaga in later life.
Anyway, the point is, as a result of this, I hear people contradict themselves.
So........some years ago, having:
1. Been born with a very simple, uncomplicated personality.
2. Been born with a glue-trap memory.
3. Been born with a quick, analytical mind.
4. Been born with an inability to keep my effing mouth shut.
I called somebody out on a contradiction. "But you once said................"
And I got such a telling off. A friendship ended that day. I was told, and rightly so, that people are entitled to change their stance on things, and that people often say things they don't mean.
But what I actually heard, and for the first time possibly, was what wasn't said.
I heard "I feel ashamed of what I said, wish I hadn't said it, and hoped nobody would remember".
So there you have two examples of when not speaking would have been far better all rolled up into one anecdote, and how Melanie learned to "read between the lines".
Will I ever learn to keep my thoughts to myself? Probably not. In fact the way I have written this article, from a very personal perspective, is probably a mistake. AND I assume you'll remember it, although you probably won't, but I will.
There has been formal research done that shows it is much, much easier to remember the truth than it is to remember a lie. This is cited as yet another reason why lying is a bad idea.
So now I'd like to examine the idea that withholding the truth is the same as lying.
I've blogged before about tact, and I can't find it, so I'm going to repeat myself here, but you won't remember what I wrote before......
(EDIT: Found it!)
http://chovblog.blogspot.ca/2013/02/tact.html
Tact is avoiding saying something that you know will cause offence. The problem, right there, is in knowing what will cause offence. Not the same as not knowing what makes you an idiot, it would not be tactless to tell me I spell offence wrong, it would show your ignorance, q.v. British spelling. Just to nip that in the bud. But that's the problem in a nutshell. What sometimes looks like tactlessness is just ignorance.
Sometimes people say things they shouldn't deliberately. For sure. But I believe much of the time, there's not really any process of decision involved, they just blurt it out. We can then choose to forgive this, heat of the moment and all that.
I am not so sure about that. If I can be tactful, then anyone can. It may not be easy to hold back, it may be very tempting to speak your mind, and believe me I know. But there are times when it really is better to bite your tongue.
And sometimes it isn't.
Back to balance then. How the bleep do we discern? It's so complicated.
I'll wind this up tomorrow, but I leave you with an example of how saying hardly anything spoke volumes.
Monday, 6 May 2013
Talk To Me - 6 - The Truth
I mentioned last week that effective communication must be honest. Now, as you know, all of this is leading up to the question of when not to speak, and there is without doubt a time to withhold the truth. There must be those little white lies we call tact that hold societies together. That excepted, honesty really is the best policy when it comes to communication.
Before you start being truthful to others, you have to be truthful to yourself. Over the years I have explored this phenomenon, looking those who lie consistently to themselves, I am convinced that it's one of the greatest problems faced by humans on a personal basis. Not only do people actually tell lies to themselves, but frequently do so to justify irrational behaviour.
I've been studying the work of Dr Tim Wilson, whose book Strangers to Ourselves goes into detail about the necessities and benefits of talking ourselves into things, telling ourselves it's better than it really is. In other words positive spin. I personally believe in positive thinking, and throughout history (q.v. Pandora's Box) we have been told that hope is something very precious. All well and good.
It is when even this apparently useful tactic gets taken too far that it can be troublesome. Two characters we talk about about are Pollyanna and Mr Mickawber.
Pollyanna was the eponymous heroine of a children's book by Eleanor H. Porter, a parable about optimism, and for its time and audience not a bad attempt at the ideal. Still, we have come to use the term to disparage those who believe that toast always lands buttered side up. Perhaps it's a bit unfair to sneer at that level of optimism, however unrealistic it is, the world really needs a quotient of sunny people, as it affects the attitude of everyone around them.
A tad more dangerous is the attitude of the Dickens character Mr Mickawber, whose optimism leads to foolish choices and keeps his family in a constant state of lack. For Mickawber it does all work out OK in the end, but we all know a Mickaber, who has lived on false hopes for so long that really all he has left is a positive attitude. Some may argue that this is a wealth greater than money, but food still has to be put on the table.
So, there's a limit, even to positive attitude, because one has to be proactive to thrive. It's a bit dodgy to base the future entirely on the hope of something better turning up. It is positively disastrous when one's retirement plan involves winning the lottery.
There is a truly dysfunctional version of this, where the attitude isn't so much positive as stagnant. We refer to it as stuck in a rut etc, and unfortunately it's a situation many find themselves in. They aren't really content with their lot, but the spin doctors in their head, instead of telling them "this is OK", are saying "this is all there is". Whenever I talk about this I like to refer to a line in a song which goes "the strong give up and move on, while the weak give up and stay". Knowing when to cut and run is a defence against the self-deception of inertia.
But we fear change, don't we? So the big lie here revolves around staying put, and justifying that. It's not easy, trying to decide where honesty lies here, or whether it's better to "bloom where you are planted", or run for the hills. The trick therefore is to work at being honest with yourself, and find out what it is you really want.
Being the funny creatures we are we talk ourselves out of things as well as into them. Self-doubt is a form of dishonesty and requires just as much intervention. Not least because it often leads to telling lies to others.
You see, before you can be honest with the rest of the world, you have to be honest with yourself. You have to find that balance of realism, you have to understand your own mind. It is harder to delude yourself than it is to lie convincingly to other people, so if you have achieved self-deception, you are a potential liar.
I suppose the best examples of this are the charismatic religious leaders, and the charlatans in the world of psychic insight and healing. While some are simply conmen, others truly believe in their abilities, and it is this belief that allows them to be so convincing. Are any of them genuine? Matter of opinion, but there certainly are plenty of well-intentioned individuals who are utterly convinced that they have such powers.
Similar are the get-rich-quick and pyramid scheme participants, and the hawkers of certain spurious "alternative" remedies. Other than those at the top of the chain (who know they are onto a good thing) these industries are entirely based not only on the credulity of customers, but of the salesmen too. Even something as innocuous as Tupperware requires one to believe in the product, and the best salespeople in the world are not the pushiest, but the most sincere.
I dwell on all of this to point out that much of the lying we do in communication isn't intentional. It's a learned way of behaving.
How many times have you visited a doctor to discuss a problem, and he greets you with "Good Morning, and how are you?" and you say "Oh fine thanks!"
So why are you there?!
It's habit. We talk without thinking. It has even been said that the correct response to "How are you?" is "How are you?". It has become a ritual, a nonsense. But our conversation of rubbish goes way beyond the preliminaries. We nod and smile at all sorts of things we don't agree with, and we show feigned interest in conversations, while our mind is elsewhere. We are trained by society and good manners to lie through our teeth much of the time.
I'll save the solutions for this for later, I just wanted to make you think about how much we lie.
If the object of communication is to express ourselves, then that is what we should set out to do. Otherwise we may as well gibber like the apes we are.
People fear truth. If you admit things to other people it then becomes IMPOSSIBLE to keep up the self-delusions. It bursts the comfort bubbles. If you can get past that everyone agrees it's "freeing", but if you've been keeping up a lie a long time, it is quite a traumatic thing to go through. For this reason, obviously, it's best to be honest from the outset.
In a discussion, with an aim, presumably to solve a problem, nothing will be achieved when the truth is not the main item on the agenda. So there are two stages, deciding what the truth is, and then overcoming your fear of it. Does the truth hurt? Sometimes, but lies hurt more. There's more than one way to phrase things, and that's where tact and diplomacy comes in, but if you keep saying "yes" when you mean "no", or vice versa, you'll be the one to suffer.
Quite apart from not achieving what you actually want, sooner or later your lies will get found out. Then you look a fool, or worse. Trust is lost. Nobody listens to known liars. Even politicians can only pull the wool over our eyes so many times.
I urge you to think about your relationships, be they personal, professional, or societal. Unless you have a valid reason to be less than totally honest, it isn't communication unless it's the truth.
Let's have a quick look at the masters of lies:
Before you start being truthful to others, you have to be truthful to yourself. Over the years I have explored this phenomenon, looking those who lie consistently to themselves, I am convinced that it's one of the greatest problems faced by humans on a personal basis. Not only do people actually tell lies to themselves, but frequently do so to justify irrational behaviour.
I've been studying the work of Dr Tim Wilson, whose book Strangers to Ourselves goes into detail about the necessities and benefits of talking ourselves into things, telling ourselves it's better than it really is. In other words positive spin. I personally believe in positive thinking, and throughout history (q.v. Pandora's Box) we have been told that hope is something very precious. All well and good.
It is when even this apparently useful tactic gets taken too far that it can be troublesome. Two characters we talk about about are Pollyanna and Mr Mickawber.
Pollyanna was the eponymous heroine of a children's book by Eleanor H. Porter, a parable about optimism, and for its time and audience not a bad attempt at the ideal. Still, we have come to use the term to disparage those who believe that toast always lands buttered side up. Perhaps it's a bit unfair to sneer at that level of optimism, however unrealistic it is, the world really needs a quotient of sunny people, as it affects the attitude of everyone around them.
A tad more dangerous is the attitude of the Dickens character Mr Mickawber, whose optimism leads to foolish choices and keeps his family in a constant state of lack. For Mickawber it does all work out OK in the end, but we all know a Mickaber, who has lived on false hopes for so long that really all he has left is a positive attitude. Some may argue that this is a wealth greater than money, but food still has to be put on the table.
So, there's a limit, even to positive attitude, because one has to be proactive to thrive. It's a bit dodgy to base the future entirely on the hope of something better turning up. It is positively disastrous when one's retirement plan involves winning the lottery.
There is a truly dysfunctional version of this, where the attitude isn't so much positive as stagnant. We refer to it as stuck in a rut etc, and unfortunately it's a situation many find themselves in. They aren't really content with their lot, but the spin doctors in their head, instead of telling them "this is OK", are saying "this is all there is". Whenever I talk about this I like to refer to a line in a song which goes "the strong give up and move on, while the weak give up and stay". Knowing when to cut and run is a defence against the self-deception of inertia.
But we fear change, don't we? So the big lie here revolves around staying put, and justifying that. It's not easy, trying to decide where honesty lies here, or whether it's better to "bloom where you are planted", or run for the hills. The trick therefore is to work at being honest with yourself, and find out what it is you really want.
Being the funny creatures we are we talk ourselves out of things as well as into them. Self-doubt is a form of dishonesty and requires just as much intervention. Not least because it often leads to telling lies to others.
You see, before you can be honest with the rest of the world, you have to be honest with yourself. You have to find that balance of realism, you have to understand your own mind. It is harder to delude yourself than it is to lie convincingly to other people, so if you have achieved self-deception, you are a potential liar.
I suppose the best examples of this are the charismatic religious leaders, and the charlatans in the world of psychic insight and healing. While some are simply conmen, others truly believe in their abilities, and it is this belief that allows them to be so convincing. Are any of them genuine? Matter of opinion, but there certainly are plenty of well-intentioned individuals who are utterly convinced that they have such powers.
Similar are the get-rich-quick and pyramid scheme participants, and the hawkers of certain spurious "alternative" remedies. Other than those at the top of the chain (who know they are onto a good thing) these industries are entirely based not only on the credulity of customers, but of the salesmen too. Even something as innocuous as Tupperware requires one to believe in the product, and the best salespeople in the world are not the pushiest, but the most sincere.
I dwell on all of this to point out that much of the lying we do in communication isn't intentional. It's a learned way of behaving.
How many times have you visited a doctor to discuss a problem, and he greets you with "Good Morning, and how are you?" and you say "Oh fine thanks!"
So why are you there?!
It's habit. We talk without thinking. It has even been said that the correct response to "How are you?" is "How are you?". It has become a ritual, a nonsense. But our conversation of rubbish goes way beyond the preliminaries. We nod and smile at all sorts of things we don't agree with, and we show feigned interest in conversations, while our mind is elsewhere. We are trained by society and good manners to lie through our teeth much of the time.
I'll save the solutions for this for later, I just wanted to make you think about how much we lie.
If the object of communication is to express ourselves, then that is what we should set out to do. Otherwise we may as well gibber like the apes we are.
People fear truth. If you admit things to other people it then becomes IMPOSSIBLE to keep up the self-delusions. It bursts the comfort bubbles. If you can get past that everyone agrees it's "freeing", but if you've been keeping up a lie a long time, it is quite a traumatic thing to go through. For this reason, obviously, it's best to be honest from the outset.
In a discussion, with an aim, presumably to solve a problem, nothing will be achieved when the truth is not the main item on the agenda. So there are two stages, deciding what the truth is, and then overcoming your fear of it. Does the truth hurt? Sometimes, but lies hurt more. There's more than one way to phrase things, and that's where tact and diplomacy comes in, but if you keep saying "yes" when you mean "no", or vice versa, you'll be the one to suffer.
Quite apart from not achieving what you actually want, sooner or later your lies will get found out. Then you look a fool, or worse. Trust is lost. Nobody listens to known liars. Even politicians can only pull the wool over our eyes so many times.
I urge you to think about your relationships, be they personal, professional, or societal. Unless you have a valid reason to be less than totally honest, it isn't communication unless it's the truth.
Let's have a quick look at the masters of lies:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)