How to Speak Effectively: Influence, Engage, & Charm
In this video, we'll discuss the key points from Patrick King's book
"How to Speak Effectively: Influence, Engage, & Charm" (How to be
More Likable and Charismatic Book 29). This book is a comprehensive
guide to improving your communication skills and making a lasting
impression on others.
Hear it Here - https://adbl.co/3N9lsjI
00:00:00 How to Speak Effectively
00:06:51 How To Use The Ladder In Your Own Life.
00:28:30 Chunking - Adjusting The Zoom Button.
00:42:58 Think Before You Speak.
We'll cover topics such as:
The Ladder of Inference: Using this framework to understand your assumptions and biases.
How to Use the Ladder in Your Own Life: Practical tips for applying the Ladder of Inference to your daily interactions.
Framing: How to present your ideas in a persuasive and engaging way.
Chunking: How to break down complex information into smaller, more manageable chunks.
Conversational Extremists: The Nitpicker and The Philosopher: How to deal with these two common conversational partners.
Think Before You Speak: The importance of pausing and considering your words before you speak.
Understanding "Clean Communication": What it is and how to achieve it.
Transcript
How to Speak Effectively:
Speaker:Influence,
Speaker:Engage,
Speaker:& Charm (How to be More Likable and Charismatic Book 29)
Speaker:Written by
Speaker:Patrick King, narrated by russell newton.
Speaker:In the chapter that follows,
Speaker:we’re going to look closely at
Speaker:exactly what makes communication
Speaker:effective ...and what makes it
Speaker:miscommunication.
Speaker:We’ll consider the importance of
Speaker:understanding the other person’s
Speaker:frame of reference,
Speaker:how to frame your own position,
Speaker:what “chunking” is and how to use
Speaker:it,
Speaker:and how to adjust your mindset so you
Speaker:become a conscious,
Speaker:clean communicator.
Speaker:But first,
Speaker:what is miscommunication?
Speaker:Have you ever been speaking with
Speaker:someone,
Speaker:feeling as though you are “reaching
Speaker:them,” when all of a sudden,
Speaker:they say something that lets you know
Speaker:that you are both on completely
Speaker:different wavelengths?
Speaker:It can be a disorienting and
Speaker:frustrating experience,
Speaker:but miscommunication happens for a
Speaker:reason—and it can be avoided.
Speaker:Poor communication arises as a result
Speaker:of a mismatch of perspectives,
Speaker:approach,
Speaker:or conversational skill.
Speaker:Being an effective communicator means
Speaker:appreciating that the complicated
Speaker:process of communication doesn’t
Speaker:happen by accident.
Speaker:To avoid misunderstandings you need to
Speaker:consciously and actively take charge of
Speaker:the process—and this is especially
Speaker:true when your message is subtle,
Speaker:nuanced,
Speaker:or very abstract.
Speaker:If you examine any moment of
Speaker:miscommunication clearly,
Speaker:you’ll see that understanding breaks
Speaker:down for a few reasons -
Speaker:•One or both of you has failed to
Speaker:understand how the other is viewing
Speaker:things.
Speaker:•Faulty assumptions have been made,
Speaker:or someone has jumped to conclusions.
Speaker:In 1974,
Speaker:business professor Chris Argyris
Speaker:created a handy tool for better
Speaker:communication,
Speaker:which he called "the ladder of
Speaker:inference" (sometimes called "the
Speaker:ladder of inquiry").
Speaker:The ladder is a metaphor for the way
Speaker:people think whenever they are given
Speaker:new information.
Speaker:It’s about how new data and
Speaker:information is processed.
Speaker:What’s useful about his metaphor is
Speaker:that it reminds us in a simple way that
Speaker:different people tend to process
Speaker:information in different ways.
Speaker:If we are unaware that this is
Speaker:happening,
Speaker:we can talk at cross-purposes—and
Speaker:miscommunication arises.
Speaker:Before we look at the ladder,
Speaker:let’s consider an example.
Speaker:Imagine a couple working together on a
Speaker:household budget.
Speaker:Jamie is looking back at the past six
Speaker:months and trying to find out where
Speaker:they overspent and why.
Speaker:Alex is looking ahead to the next six
Speaker:months and trying to figure out what
Speaker:kind of summer vacation they can afford.
Speaker:They end up having an enormous
Speaker:argument,
Speaker:with Jamie thinking that Alex is not
Speaker:taking money concerns seriously,
Speaker:or taking responsibility for
Speaker:overspending,
Speaker:whereas Alex cannot see why Jamie is
Speaker:stuck on what is in the past and cannot
Speaker:be changed.
Speaker:They both find themselves saying
Speaker:“I’m just trying to get a handle on
Speaker:our financial situation!” and yet
Speaker:mysteriously they also both feel that
Speaker:the other one is getting in the way.
Speaker:What’s happened here?
Speaker:According to Argyris,
Speaker:communication has broken down,
Speaker:and it’s because Jamie and Alex are
Speaker:on different rungs of the ladder of
Speaker:inference.
Speaker:If you’ve ever experienced a
Speaker:communication breakdown of this kind,
Speaker:you’ll know that it can be very
Speaker:subtle and hard to pinpoint.
Speaker:Often,
Speaker:we are only actually aware of our
Speaker:assumptions,
Speaker:expectations,
Speaker:and frames of reference when they
Speaker:conflict with someone else’s!
Speaker:But this is where the ladder comes in.
Speaker:It looks as follows.
Speaker:Imagine a ladder with each rung getting
Speaker:gradually smaller from bottom to top - .
Speaker:ACTIONS. .
Speaker:BELIEFS. .
Speaker:CONCLUSIONS. .
Speaker:ASSUMPTIONS. .
Speaker:MEANINGS. .
Speaker:SELECTED DATA. .
Speaker:OBSERVATIONS. .
Speaker:Now imagine that this ladder is
Speaker:standing in a big puddle of water,
Speaker:which we’ll call the POOL OF
Speaker:OBSERVATIONS. .
Speaker:This pool contains all the possible
Speaker:observations we can make about the
Speaker:world—theoretically,
Speaker:there are infinite possibilities.
Speaker:The next rung up is OBSERVATIONS.
Speaker:These are all the observations that you
Speaker:select from the candidates of potential.
Speaker:We’ll look at what causes you to
Speaker:select some observations and not others
Speaker:in just a moment.
Speaker:The next rung is about the pieces of
Speaker:information you further select from
Speaker:these selected observations,
Speaker:SELECTED DATA. .i.e.,
Speaker:it’s a subset.
Speaker:You’re further narrowing down the
Speaker:data you are focusing on.
Speaker:The next rung is MEANING,
Speaker:which is the significance you attach to
Speaker:these selected observations.
Speaker:The next rung,
Speaker:ASSUMPTIONS. . is what you do with
Speaker:this meaning.
Speaker:You extrapolate or make assumptions
Speaker:based on the meaning you’ve extracted
Speaker:from the observations.
Speaker:On the next rung you come to
Speaker:CONCLUSIONS. .to make sense about what
Speaker:this all amounts to,
Speaker:and finally,
Speaker:these conclusions inform your BELIEFS.
Speaker:.about the world and your place in it.
Speaker:Consequently,
Speaker:every ACTION you take,
Speaker:the last rung,
Speaker:is informed by this long chain of
Speaker:inferences and meaning making.
Speaker:Furthermore,
Speaker:the ladder doesn’t just go one way.
Speaker:Once you make meaning and take an
Speaker:action in accordance with those
Speaker:beliefs,
Speaker:then those beliefs actually tend to
Speaker:affect the data you are likely to
Speaker:select next time round on the SELECTED
Speaker:DATA. .rung.
Speaker:Can you see where this is going?
Speaker:There are two potential problems - 1.
Speaker:Though everyone may begin in the same
Speaker:puddle of potential observations,
Speaker:each person ends up constructing their
Speaker:own unique ladder from those
Speaker:observations all the way up to the
Speaker:actions they take.
Speaker:If those ladders lead to completely
Speaker:different assumptions,
Speaker:meanings,
Speaker:beliefs,
Speaker:and ultimately actions,
Speaker:then conflict can arise.
Speaker:2.
Speaker:Conflict can also occur,
Speaker:as we saw with Jamie and Alex,
Speaker:when two people are on different rungs
Speaker:and trying to talk with one another
Speaker:from different positions.
Speaker:In our example,
Speaker:Jamie is on the SELECTED DATA. .and
Speaker:MEANING rungs,
Speaker:trying to understand what went wrong
Speaker:and piece it all together (and,
Speaker:honestly,
Speaker:assign blame ...).
Speaker:Alex,
Speaker:however,
Speaker:is on the BELIEFS. .or ACTIONS.
Speaker:.rung,
Speaker:and is already looking for ways to move
Speaker:on from the fact that they overspent.
Speaker:It may be,
Speaker:however,
Speaker:that even if Jamie and Alex were on the
Speaker:same rung,
Speaker:they may disagree on what meanings to
Speaker:ascribe to observations,
Speaker:and what beliefs and actions to take as
Speaker:a result.
Speaker:However,
Speaker:good communication doesn’t
Speaker:necessarily mean agreement—it means
Speaker:understanding.
Speaker:Jamie and Alex can have a fruitful,
Speaker:productive conversation even though
Speaker:they ultimately disagree.
Speaker:At the same time,
Speaker:they can have an argument even when
Speaker:they both want the same thing and
Speaker:essentially agree!
Speaker:How To Use The Ladder In Your Own Life.
Speaker:The ladder is an excellent way to
Speaker:identify,
Speaker:defuse,
Speaker:and resolve conflict.
Speaker:It’s a way to shed light on
Speaker:misunderstandings and get everyone
Speaker:moving forward again.
Speaker:If you find yourself in a situation
Speaker:where you or others are “talking past
Speaker:one another,” then this is your
Speaker:signal that communication is going to
Speaker:break down—or already has.
Speaker:The first thing to do is check which
Speaker:rung each speaker is on.
Speaker:If the person you’re talking to has
Speaker:an objection that comes from a rung
Speaker:lower than yours,
Speaker:it needs to be addressed first before
Speaker:moving on.
Speaker:Your discussion should focus on
Speaker:bringing you both up the ladder
Speaker:together.
Speaker:For example,
Speaker:if Alex identifies that Jamie is on a
Speaker:lower rung,
Speaker:then the objections made start to make
Speaker:more sense.
Speaker:Alex can now address them.
Speaker:Jamie - “You’re not listening.
Speaker:We spent five hundred dollars more last
Speaker:month on eating out than we said we
Speaker:would.
Speaker:That’s a big deal!"
Speaker:Alex - “Okay,
Speaker:it seems like you’re really worried
Speaker:about how much we overspent.
Speaker:I agree with you,
Speaker:it’s a lot.
Speaker:Why do you think it happened?"
Speaker:(Here,
Speaker:Alex is asking Jamie to move to the
Speaker:next rung,
Speaker:MEANING. )
Speaker:Jamie - “Well,
Speaker:we were careless,
Speaker:that’s all.
Speaker:We weren’t paying attention."
Speaker:Alex - “I agree.
Speaker:It crept up on us.
Speaker:Now I’m sure you’ll agree with me,
Speaker:though,
Speaker:that there’s nothing we can do about
Speaker:it now.
Speaker:And if we want to do better next time
Speaker:round,
Speaker:we need to start looking at the future."
Speaker:(Now,
Speaker:to the next rung—can you see the two
Speaker:ASSUMPTIONS. .made?)
Speaker:Jamie - “Yes,
Speaker:okay.
Speaker:Let’s do that."
Speaker:Alex - “Unless we make some changes,
Speaker:we’re going to be in big trouble (
Speaker:CONCLUSIONS-ellipses.- Now I know
Speaker:money’s tight,
Speaker:but I still believe that going on
Speaker:vacations is very important,
Speaker:and I don’t want to suddenly stop
Speaker:doing everything we enjoy (
Speaker:BELIEFS-ellipses.- So I think moving
Speaker:forward,
Speaker:I want to figure out some smart ways we
Speaker:can still do the things we love without
Speaker:spending too much money ( ACTIONS...”
Speaker:Jamie - “Yes,
Speaker:that makes a lot of sense.
Speaker:I want to do that too."
Speaker:Now,
Speaker:there is no more disagreement in which
Speaker:Jamie keeps reiterating how bad they
Speaker:were to overspend,
Speaker:while Alex feels guilty for planning
Speaker:vacations.
Speaker:They’re communicating again.
Speaker:Granted,
Speaker:in this example,
Speaker:we’ve kept things very simple and
Speaker:straightforward;
Speaker:in real life,
Speaker:each of these “rungs” may take a
Speaker:long time,
Speaker:perhaps even days.
Speaker:And though in our example Alex very
Speaker:neatly “leads” Jamie,
Speaker:in reality this process would be a lot
Speaker:more subtle,
Speaker:complex,
Speaker:and collaborative.
Speaker:There may well be disagreement or
Speaker:compromise.
Speaker:But ultimately communication is
Speaker:improved because people are reasoning
Speaker:together,
Speaker:rather than at cross-purposes.
Speaker:The ladder can also be useful any time
Speaker:you are trying to get someone to
Speaker:understand your own actions,
Speaker:or proposed actions.
Speaker:Whenever you want to “bring someone
Speaker:around” to your point of view,
Speaker:don’t start with the top of the
Speaker:ladder—bring them along with you and
Speaker:take each step of the ladder at a time
Speaker:so they can see how the inferences and
Speaker:assumptions of your argument gradually
Speaker:build on one another.
Speaker:It’s true that someone understanding
Speaker:your thought process doesn’t
Speaker:necessarily have to agree with you
Speaker:afterward.
Speaker:The good thing is that if you use the
Speaker:ladder technique,
Speaker:you will almost always avoid
Speaker:misunderstandings and miscommunication,
Speaker:and you will give yourself the best
Speaker:chance of actually being heard.
Speaker:Another great thing about the ladder is
Speaker:that it shows you that the process of
Speaker:thinking contains many separate,
Speaker:sequential components—and skipping
Speaker:one can sometimes lead to sloppy
Speaker:thinking and,
Speaker:of course,
Speaker:miscommunication.
Speaker:It can be useful sometimes to use the
Speaker:ladder to slow down and examine your
Speaker:own thought processes.
Speaker:Try working backward almost
Speaker:“forensically” - 1.
Speaker:What beliefs have inspired your actions?
Speaker:2.
Speaker:What conclusions do you have about a
Speaker:situation,
Speaker:yourself,
Speaker:others,
Speaker:or the world that informed those
Speaker:beliefs?
Speaker:3.
Speaker:What assumptions are you making?
Speaker:(A great question is to ask whether you
Speaker:really have much evidence for them,
Speaker:and investigate what changes if you
Speaker:make different assumptions or none at
Speaker:all).
Speaker:4.
Speaker:What meaning are you ascribing to your
Speaker:experiences?
Speaker:5.
Speaker:What are you focusing on?
Speaker:What data are you selecting from your
Speaker:environment to act on—or else,
Speaker:what information have you discounted,
Speaker:ignored,
Speaker:or forgotten about?
Speaker:6.
Speaker:Finally,
Speaker:can you look once more with fresh eyes
Speaker:at the observations around you?
Speaker:For a moment,
Speaker:can you do this without any
Speaker:interpretation?
Speaker:Asking these questions can reveal
Speaker:interesting ways that our own thinking
Speaker:has gone astray,
Speaker:and if we can get a better
Speaker:understanding of that,
Speaker:we instantly become better
Speaker:communicators.
Speaker:After all,
Speaker:how can we expect clear and conscious
Speaker:communication with others when we
Speaker:ourselves are unclear on our
Speaker:motivations,
Speaker:expectations,
Speaker:and the meaning we ascribe to any
Speaker:situation?
Speaker:The ladder can be used formally or
Speaker:informally,
Speaker:and for big complex chunks of data as
Speaker:well as more simple information.
Speaker:It is highly adjustable,
Speaker:but its strength is that it forces you
Speaker:to look at things you might have taken
Speaker:for granted.
Speaker:For example,
Speaker:you might use the framework in a
Speaker:meeting you are leading.
Speaker:If you understand the meeting as an
Speaker:exercise in getting everyone to
Speaker:“think together,” then you can
Speaker:structure the meeting so that it moves
Speaker:deliberately from one rung to the other.
Speaker:This gives you time to iron out
Speaker:objections or confusions rather than
Speaker:rushing ahead to the higher rungs and
Speaker:risking a full-on conflict.
Speaker:A few further key insights as you use
Speaker:the ladder in your own communication -
Speaker:Nobody is “wrong."
Speaker:The ladder is not there to help you
Speaker:find out who is to blame!
Speaker:Also,
Speaker:the person who is higher on the ladder
Speaker:isn’t necessarily faster,
Speaker:more intelligent,
Speaker:more correct,
Speaker:or more motivated.
Speaker:As we’ve seen,
Speaker:misunderstandings usually arise because
Speaker:of mismatch—that doesn’t mean that
Speaker:there has to be a good guy and a bad
Speaker:guy.
Speaker:It just means something is not aligning.
Speaker:Switch focus from content to process.
Speaker:Too many arguments are sustained
Speaker:because people are distracted by the
Speaker:content of what is being said—but
Speaker:usually the problem is the way it’s
Speaker:being said,
Speaker:and the reasoning behind that.
Speaker:As you talk to someone,
Speaker:become tuned in to the way they are
Speaker:thinking—and the way you are thinking!
Speaker:Keep your ego out of it.
Speaker:Disagreement and conflict have a way of
Speaker:activating our defenses and making us
Speaker:wrongly believe that we are the model
Speaker:of good reasoning,
Speaker:and everyone else is mistaken,
Speaker:stupid,
Speaker:crazy,
Speaker:wrong,
Speaker:bad,
Speaker:etc.
Speaker:But slow down and consider your
Speaker:reasoning,
Speaker:their reasoning,
Speaker:and the way the two are interacting.
Speaker:Remember that you are not just applying
Speaker:the ladder analysis to them,
Speaker:but to yourself as well.
Speaker:You might feel like you want to stand
Speaker:on the top of your own ladder and yell
Speaker:your opinion to all who will hear it,
Speaker:but this is just ego talking and will
Speaker:get you nowhere.
Speaker:Ask questions.
Speaker:Finally,
Speaker:one way to become a better communicator
Speaker:is to actively engage them in the
Speaker:process of examining the underlying
Speaker:reasoning behind action and opinion.
Speaker:Ask with genuine curiosity.
Speaker:Why do they think X. Y. Z. ?
Speaker:What facts do they know,
Speaker:and what do those facts mean to them?
Speaker:Why?
Speaker:How?
Speaker:To conclude,
Speaker:most of us experience the objective
Speaker:world subjectively and selectively.
Speaker:We focus on specific facts only,
Speaker:interpret what those facts mean based
Speaker:on certain assumptions,
Speaker:come to conclusions based on these
Speaker:assumptions,
Speaker:allow these conclusions to shape our
Speaker:beliefs,
Speaker:and then let these beliefs guide our
Speaker:action ...as well as determine what
Speaker:facts we focus on in the future.
Speaker:This process can be an opportunity to
Speaker:create a strong,
Speaker:effective,
Speaker:and healthy way of looking at the
Speaker:world,
Speaker:or it can become an unconscious echo
Speaker:chamber that ends up amplifying and
Speaker:replicating the same errors again and
Speaker:again.
Speaker:Framing.
Speaker:If you’re like most people,
Speaker:you listen to respond.
Speaker:You’re reactive.
Speaker:You let conversations go whichever way
Speaker:they go.
Speaker:But good communicators approach things
Speaker:a little differently.
Speaker:They are more likely to proactively set
Speaker:the frame for a conversation.
Speaker:What is a “frame”?
Speaker:It’s simply the way you position your
Speaker:line of thinking by your particular
Speaker:choice of words and expression.
Speaker:It’s the kind of thing that will
Speaker:appear to be everywhere once you know
Speaker:to look for it.
Speaker:It’s how we develop our arguments,
Speaker:“lead” our listeners along paths of
Speaker:reasoning and inference,
Speaker:and deliberately use language for a
Speaker:special purpose we have chosen.
Speaker:Consider the following speech made by
Speaker:Barack Obama at the 2004 Democratic
Speaker:National Convention - “There’s not
Speaker:a liberal America and a conservative
Speaker:America;
Speaker:there’s the United States of America.
Speaker:There’s not a Black America and white
Speaker:America and Latino America and Asian
Speaker:America;
Speaker:there’s the United States of America
Speaker:... We are one people,
Speaker:all of us pledging allegiance to the
Speaker:stars and stripes,
Speaker:all of us defending the United States
Speaker:of America.
Speaker:In the end,
Speaker:that’s what this election is about.
Speaker:Do we participate in a politics of
Speaker:cynicism,
Speaker:or do we participate in a politics of
Speaker:hope?"
Speaker:Notice how he has structured his
Speaker:speech—notice the frame by which he
Speaker:is delivering his message.
Speaker:He did not simply stand up on the stage
Speaker:and announce - “It’s important for
Speaker:us to remember who we are as
Speaker:Americans” or even “it’s time
Speaker:there was an African American
Speaker:president,
Speaker:and I’ll give you some reasons why."
Speaker:Rather,
Speaker:he took seventeen long minutes to lead
Speaker:the audience to this conclusion
Speaker:themselves.
Speaker:Note in the above that he asks a
Speaker:rhetorical question,
Speaker:to which the only answer can be “we
Speaker:participate in a politics of hope."
Speaker:Notice the rhythm and repetition in the
Speaker:way he lays out the artificial
Speaker:differences between different types of
Speaker:Americans,
Speaker:then leads to his conclusion - “we
Speaker:are one people."
Speaker:Obama (and indeed anyone delivering a
Speaker:persuasive speech of this kind)
Speaker:succeeds not because he effectively
Speaker:shows people what he thinks,
Speaker:but because he constructs a compelling
Speaker:frame in which to communicate that
Speaker:message.
Speaker:His listeners,
Speaker:then,
Speaker:go a step further from understanding
Speaker:and are stirred up enough to be
Speaker:inspired by him and agree with what he
Speaker:says.
Speaker:When the frame of a conversation
Speaker:changes,
Speaker:everything changes.
Speaker:Everything takes on a different meaning.
Speaker:Therefore,
Speaker:it’s simply not something we can
Speaker:leave to chance.
Speaker:Obama,
Speaker:of course,
Speaker:would have had this speech carefully
Speaker:written by experts,
Speaker:and he may well have rehearsed it for
Speaker:hours.
Speaker:Obama was known as a powerful and
Speaker:persuasive speaker,
Speaker:and it’s in big part due to his
Speaker:understanding of how to frame himself
Speaker:and his message.
Speaker:George Lakoff is an author and
Speaker:professor of cognitive science and
Speaker:linguistics.
Speaker:In his book Don’t Think of an
Speaker:Elephant!,
Speaker:he explains how talking to people’s
Speaker:frames is a powerful way of having them
Speaker:really hear you,
Speaker:saying that we mistakenly think that,
Speaker:“if we just tell people the facts,
Speaker:since people are basically rational
Speaker:beings,
Speaker:they’ll all reach the right
Speaker:conclusions.
Speaker:But we know from cognitive science that
Speaker:people do not think like that.
Speaker:People think in frames ...to be
Speaker:accepted,
Speaker:the truth must fit people’s frames.
Speaker:If the facts do not fit a frame,
Speaker:the frame stays and the facts bounce
Speaker:off.
Speaker:Why?
Speaker:Neuroscience tells us that each of the
Speaker:concepts we have—the long-term
Speaker:concepts that structure how we
Speaker:think—is instituted in the synapses
Speaker:of our brains.
Speaker:Concepts are not things that can be
Speaker:changed just by someone telling us a
Speaker:fact.
Speaker:We may be presented with facts,
Speaker:but for us to make sense of them,
Speaker:they have to fit what is already in the
Speaker:synapses of the brain.
Speaker:Otherwise,
Speaker:facts go in and then they go right back
Speaker:out.
Speaker:They are not heard,
Speaker:or they are not accepted as facts,
Speaker:or they mystify us - “Why would
Speaker:anyone have said that?"
Speaker:Then we label the fact as irrational,
Speaker:crazy,
Speaker:or stupid."
Speaker:So,
Speaker:a frame is the way we work with
Speaker:pre-existing concepts to ensure that
Speaker:the message we’re sharing has the
Speaker:highest chance of being received.
Speaker:Interestingly,
Speaker:it’s also why Lakoff recommends
Speaker:resisting the frame of someone you’re
Speaker:pushing against by refusing to use
Speaker:their language.
Speaker:This is because it is language that
Speaker:builds the frame—and if someone is
Speaker:not working in your interests,
Speaker:then the frame they choose will not be
Speaker:the frame you want.
Speaker:In Obama’s case,
Speaker:framing is used to persuade.
Speaker:But frames can have other uses and are
Speaker:especially helpful in navigating
Speaker:difficult,
Speaker:uncomfortable,
Speaker:or emotionally charged conflicts.
Speaker:Maybe the other person just refuses to
Speaker:listen or believe you.
Speaker:Maybe you both keep saying the same
Speaker:things over and over,
Speaker:and it’s escalating.
Speaker:What’s the solution?
Speaker:According to Lakoff,
Speaker:you both need to find a way to get into
Speaker:the same frame.
Speaker:As a good communicator,
Speaker:it’s your job to find out what story
Speaker:you could tell that will resonate with
Speaker:the other person.
Speaker:Remember—it’s not about facts.
Speaker:It’s about all the many different
Speaker:ways to look at those facts,
Speaker:and what that means for two people who
Speaker:find themselves in a conversation about
Speaker:them.
Speaker:Here are a few things to keep in mind -
Speaker:1.
Speaker:Make sure that,
Speaker:as far as possible,
Speaker:you begin every conversation with a
Speaker:good idea of where you want it to go.
Speaker:Be proactive.
Speaker:2.
Speaker:What is your frame?
Speaker:Your source of truth?
Speaker:The framework you’re embedded in?
Speaker:Really own this—it will help you find
Speaker:the metaphors and stories that will
Speaker:help you express your position.
Speaker:3.
Speaker:Get the other person to see into this
Speaker:frame of yours by asking them questions.
Speaker:You want them to agree.
Speaker:Be careful and avoid using their story
Speaker:or their words.
Speaker:4.
Speaker:Deliberately engineer the structure of
Speaker:your story so that it leads toward the
Speaker:kind of solutions you want.
Speaker:It’s about focus.
Speaker:Reading the above,
Speaker:you may think that setting a
Speaker:conversational frame may be a little
Speaker:manipulative.
Speaker:Isn’t thinking in this way precisely
Speaker:the thing that leads to stubborn
Speaker:standoffs in conversations?
Speaker:Well,
Speaker:yes and no.
Speaker:The truth is,
Speaker:we are all using frames all the time.
Speaker:It’s just a question of whether
Speaker:we’re consciously aware of it,
Speaker:how those frames work,
Speaker:to what end,
Speaker:and in service of whom and what.
Speaker:Being a good communicator means
Speaker:understanding all this and proactively
Speaker:taking charge.
Speaker:This is more often than not a win-win
Speaker:scenario.
Speaker:Let’s look at an example.
Speaker:Imagine a potential client is
Speaker:interested but has concerns about the
Speaker:price you’re charging.
Speaker:What you don’t want to do in this
Speaker:case is bombard them with facts (you
Speaker:might call them “reasons”)
Speaker:to change their mind.
Speaker:It won’t work.
Speaker:What you need to do is consider the
Speaker:best frame for the case you want to
Speaker:make.
Speaker:And to do that,
Speaker:you need to understand the frame
Speaker:they’re already in,
Speaker:the nature of their objections and
Speaker:fears,
Speaker:and what exactly it is you’re asking
Speaker:them to do.
Speaker:This might allow you to realize that
Speaker:the person is hesitant because they are
Speaker:unsure of the real value of what
Speaker:you’re offering.
Speaker:They are very,
Speaker:very tired of being aggressively
Speaker:marketed to and just want something
Speaker:that works.
Speaker:So you say that they’re right—it is
Speaker:expensive.
Speaker:There are people who don’t buy
Speaker:because it’s not in their budget,
Speaker:and that’s okay.
Speaker:But you do have many satisfied clients
Speaker:who,
Speaker:having taken the leap,
Speaker:are now really glad they did—and
Speaker:you’d be happy to put them in touch.
Speaker:Otherwise,
Speaker:you totally respect their decision
Speaker:either way,
Speaker:and they know where to find you if they
Speaker:change their mind.
Speaker:Can you feel the frame?
Speaker:Can you see how this response actually
Speaker:pulls the potential client into that
Speaker:frame with you?
Speaker:There is nothing in it for the person
Speaker:to push against—and a lot to agree
Speaker:with.
Speaker:As Dwight D. Eisenhower said,
Speaker:“Motivation is the art of getting
Speaker:people to do what you want them to do
Speaker:because they want to do it.” In this
Speaker:example,
Speaker:you are using a frame that gives you
Speaker:the best chance of actually reaching
Speaker:this prospective client and getting
Speaker:them to behave in the way you want them
Speaker:to behave.
Speaker:In the same way,
Speaker:a frame can change anything.
Speaker:It can turn a restriction and a limit
Speaker:into “safety” and “comfort."
Speaker:It can position a loss as a gain or a
Speaker:gain as a loss.
Speaker:It can appoint an adversary as a
Speaker:teacher,
Speaker:and a friend as a saboteur.
Speaker:The luxury fashion brand Hermes sells a
Speaker:handbag,
Speaker:the “Birkin."
Speaker:But not just anyone can buy the
Speaker:handbag;
Speaker:there are only a limited number
Speaker:available,
Speaker:and you have to be invited to spend the
Speaker:roughly fifty thousand dollars to have
Speaker:one.
Speaker:The company will only sell to those
Speaker:they consider worthy,
Speaker:and in fact don’t even fully
Speaker:advertise their selection criteria,
Speaker:and do not display the bag in ordinary
Speaker:stores.
Speaker:Their tactics around this item are kept
Speaker:under a deliberate veil of mystery.
Speaker:Hermes has completely inverted the
Speaker:conventional buyer-seller frame and
Speaker:created their own .- In this frame,
Speaker:instead of the company marketing
Speaker:themselves so they are selected by the
Speaker:consumer,
Speaker:the consumer fights to be considered a
Speaker:potential buyer and feels privileged to
Speaker:cough up the fifty thousand dollars.
Speaker:Every person you ever communicate with
Speaker:will have a lifetime of experiences
Speaker:behind them,
Speaker:and these have taught them in gradual
Speaker:increments to adopt certain beliefs and
Speaker:worldviews (hopefully not too many as
Speaker:bizarre as Hermes’).
Speaker:Many of these views will be unconscious.
Speaker:But that doesn’t stop them from being
Speaker:strongly influenced by these beliefs,
Speaker:which seep through and infiltrate
Speaker:everything they do and say,
Speaker:as well as everything they’re able to
Speaker:hear or agree with.
Speaker:Think again about Obama’s speech.
Speaker:There would have been many different
Speaker:people in the crowd that night,
Speaker:and a lot of them will have possessed
Speaker:viewpoints and frames that didn’t
Speaker:match the one Obama was presenting.
Speaker:For example,
Speaker:many Democrats who are politically
Speaker:involved enough to attend conventions
Speaker:and rallies do tend to think that there
Speaker:is such a thing as a “liberal America
Speaker:and a conservative America,
Speaker:a Black America and white
Speaker:America”—after all,
Speaker:they were there to show support for the
Speaker:democrats,
Speaker:not the conservatives,
Speaker:and specifically for Obama himself
Speaker:precisely because he was a Black
Speaker:American,
Speaker:not because his race didn’t matter.
Speaker:This is the power of framing—it can
Speaker:so thoroughly change context,
Speaker:shift meanings,
Speaker:and create new understandings that it
Speaker:allows you to not only have a
Speaker:conversation but steer a conversation.
Speaker:This steering is so powerful that it
Speaker:can actually remake meaning entirely
Speaker:and cause people to completely change
Speaker:not just their opinions but the way
Speaker:they arrive at those opinions.
Speaker:Obama could have framed himself as a
Speaker:victim or as an angry avenger.
Speaker:He could have highlighted the frame of
Speaker:justice,
Speaker:or the frame of prosperity.
Speaker:He could,
Speaker:in essence,
Speaker:have chosen any frame in the world.
Speaker:When someone uses their power to frame
Speaker:and influence in a good way,
Speaker:we call them leaders and are happy to
Speaker:be inspired by them.
Speaker:When their frames dominate and diminish
Speaker:us,
Speaker:we call them bullies and tyrants.
Speaker:Importantly—it’s the same skill!
Speaker:Reality is fixed ...but the meaning of
Speaker:reality is dynamic and subject to
Speaker:change.
Speaker:It is not absolute but contextual,
Speaker:not passively received but actively
Speaker:constructed.
Speaker:This is where communication takes
Speaker:place,
Speaker:and where you have your greatest chance
Speaker:for making connections,
Speaker:being heard,
Speaker:and influencing others.
Speaker:Chunking .- Adjusting The Zoom Button.
Speaker:Take a look at this conversation - A
Speaker:.- Oh,
Speaker:wow,
Speaker:so you’re a music teacher!
Speaker:How long have you been doing that?
Speaker:B .- Oh,
Speaker:about ten years now,
Speaker:at least.
Speaker:A .- Cool.
Speaker:And that whole time you taught the
Speaker:French horn?
Speaker:B .- Well,
Speaker:no.
Speaker:That’s my main instrument,
Speaker:but I do oboe as well.
Speaker:A .- Huh.
Speaker:I’ve heard that the French horn is
Speaker:really difficult.
Speaker:B .- Yeah,
Speaker:it can be.
Speaker:A lot of my students end up quitting,
Speaker:sorry to say!
Speaker:A .- Oh,
Speaker:yeah?
Speaker:How long do they stay before they
Speaker:usually quit?
Speaker:B .- How long?
Speaker:Uh ...I’m not sure.
Speaker:Everyone’s different,
Speaker:I guess.
Speaker:I’d say the ones who leave do so
Speaker:pretty quickly.
Speaker:But that could be for all sorts of
Speaker:reasons.
Speaker:It’s complicated,
Speaker:I think.
Speaker:But you know early on whether you love
Speaker:the instrument or not.
Speaker:A .- Oh,
Speaker:totally.
Speaker:So maybe,
Speaker:like,
Speaker:they’d quit after the first lesson?
Speaker:B .- Uh ...no,
Speaker:not always.
Speaker:Sometimes a month?
Speaker:I don’t know.
Speaker:A .- Do they ever tell you before they
Speaker:go or do they just disappear?
Speaker:And on and on.
Speaker:What’s your feeling about this
Speaker:conversation?
Speaker:Reading it again,
Speaker:can you spot the point at which is
Speaker:starts to kind of grind along?
Speaker:You can almost feel the moment where B
Speaker:starts to get bored.
Speaker:Why?
Speaker:Before we consider the answer,
Speaker:let’s look at another example - A .-
Speaker:Oh,
Speaker:wow,
Speaker:so you’re a music teacher!
Speaker:How long have you been doing that?
Speaker:B .- Oh,
Speaker:about ten years now,
Speaker:at least.
Speaker:A .- Cool.
Speaker:That’s a long time.
Speaker:Do you think you’ll always teach?
Speaker:B .- Well,
Speaker:I do sometimes wonder.
Speaker:It’s rewarding,
Speaker:but ...people’s attitudes to learning
Speaker:have changed so much over the years,
Speaker:you know?
Speaker:A .- I can imagine.
Speaker:People seem to just have less and less
Speaker:patience these days.
Speaker:What do you think’s causing it?
Speaker:B .- Well,
Speaker:who knows.
Speaker:Take your pick,
Speaker:right?
Speaker:I mean,
Speaker:I have some very good students,
Speaker:so I can’t complain.
Speaker:A .- Oh,
Speaker:I’m sure.
Speaker:Do you think that overall your
Speaker:students’ motivations are changing
Speaker:over time?
Speaker:B .- Hm,
Speaker:could be.
Speaker:It’s hard to say.
Speaker:A .- Do you think that you’ve had to
Speaker:adapt the way you teach them to
Speaker:accommodate for how different students
Speaker:are today compared with ten years ago?
Speaker:I often feel like we focus too much on
Speaker:technique in this country,
Speaker:and so little on the art side.
Speaker:Do you find that?
Speaker:Now consider what you think of this
Speaker:conversation.
Speaker:It’s completely different,
Speaker:but somehow something is still not
Speaker:quite working.
Speaker:The big problem with both conversations
Speaker:(other than A asking a barrage of
Speaker:questions and B being somewhat
Speaker:unresponsive)
Speaker:is a question of chunking.
Speaker:In neuro-linguistic programming,
Speaker:the word "chunking" is used to describe
Speaker:the way in which we can group pieces of
Speaker:information.
Speaker:We can chunk “up” or “down -” .
Speaker:Chunking up means to ask questions or
Speaker:make comments in such a way as to
Speaker:combine information and make it more
Speaker:abstract and more general.
Speaker:It’s the process of looking for
Speaker:things that are coming,
Speaker:or “zooming out” to see the
Speaker:overarching theme,
Speaker:pattern,
Speaker:or structure that simplifies all the
Speaker:smaller details you’re looking at.
Speaker:So someone gives you a long list of all
Speaker:the pets they’ve had throughout their
Speaker:life,
Speaker:and you chunk up by saying,
Speaker:“So you’re a real animal lover,
Speaker:huh?"
Speaker:Chunking down goes the other way.
Speaker:It’s when we ask questions or make
Speaker:comments that move the conversation
Speaker:from the general and abstract to the
Speaker:more specific.
Speaker:Someone says they love animals,
Speaker:and you ask them,
Speaker:“Do you have a pet?"
Speaker:In doing so,
Speaker:you’re asking for a more specific
Speaker:instance of the general claim they’ve
Speaker:just made,
Speaker:i.e.,
Speaker:zooming in.
Speaker:Basically,
Speaker:chunking is a way to turn the dial on
Speaker:the level of detail occurring in a
Speaker:conversation.
Speaker:Let’s return to our examples above.
Speaker:In the first example,
Speaker:Speaker A asks questions that lead to
Speaker:them zooming in on the idea of students
Speaker:quitting and exactly when they quit and
Speaker:why.
Speaker:It’s as though each question drills
Speaker:deeper and deeper into this one chosen
Speaker:thread—perhaps to the boredom of
Speaker:Speaker B!
Speaker:The second conversation has a different
Speaker:problem.
Speaker:Here,
Speaker:Speaker A keeps asking questions that
Speaker:open up the conversation to a more
Speaker:abstract level.
Speaker:But in time,
Speaker:these questions just seem to go nowhere.
Speaker:They are soon talking about students in
Speaker:general,
Speaker:and then all people and their total
Speaker:lack of patience,
Speaker:and then the entire system of music
Speaker:education in the whole
Speaker:country—there’s a load of sweeping
Speaker:generalization and broad abstraction.
Speaker:Again Speaker B is not quite enjoying
Speaker:this flight into the abstract!
Speaker:Chunking up questions/phrases/themes
Speaker:can look like -
Speaker:•What does that mean?
Speaker:•Let's look at the big picture ...
Speaker:•How does that connect to ...?
Speaker:•Why did all of that happen?
Speaker:•What pattern is emerging?
Speaker:Chunking down,
Speaker:on the other hand,
Speaker:could sound like -
Speaker:•What happened next?
Speaker:•Can you provide a specific detail?
Speaker:(For example,
Speaker:what was his name?
Speaker:How much did it cost?)
Speaker:•Tell me more about ...
Speaker:•When did this happen,
Speaker:and in what order?
Speaker:Which is better to use—chunking up or
Speaker:down?
Speaker:The answer is neither,
Speaker:because a good conversation contains a
Speaker:dynamic balance of both of them.
Speaker:We can zoom in and out to various
Speaker:levels of detail and abstraction
Speaker:according to our needs.
Speaker:(We’ll explore this more in a later
Speaker:chapter when we look at “funnel
Speaker:questions.”)
Speaker:Start at a broad,
Speaker:general level and work your way down.
Speaker:This may correspond with more
Speaker:open-ended questions,
Speaker:but it doesn’t necessarily have to -
Speaker:1.
Speaker:Start with chunking up to define the
Speaker:“territory” of your conversation,
Speaker:state the parameters of the problem,
Speaker:or gently introduce a new conversation
Speaker:or topic.
Speaker:2.
Speaker:Gradually chunk down,
Speaker:but do not ask more than three chunking
Speaker:down questions in a row.
Speaker:Find out things like specific goals,
Speaker:motivations,
Speaker:problems,
Speaker:interpretations,
Speaker:examples,
Speaker:etc.
Speaker:3.
Speaker:Then zoom out again with another
Speaker:chunking up question.
Speaker:Again,
Speaker:try not to ask more than three of these
Speaker:in a row.
Speaker:The point of zooming in and out is to
Speaker:avoid either extreme .- Get too
Speaker:abstract and lofty and you risk
Speaker:creating a stiff,
Speaker:impersonal,
Speaker:and vague conversation about nothing
Speaker:and everything.
Speaker:On the other hand,
Speaker:linger too long on chunking down
Speaker:questions and you can get lost,
Speaker:stuck,
Speaker:or distracted by irrelevant details.
Speaker:A good metaphor is to imagine that you
Speaker:and your conversation partner are
Speaker:mutually navigating your way up a
Speaker:winding mountain path,
Speaker:using a map.
Speaker:Sometimes,
Speaker:you’ll both want to lean in and
Speaker:engage with the finer details of
Speaker:exactly where you are—the rocks and
Speaker:trees and so on.
Speaker:You’ll focus on this turn or that
Speaker:turn,
Speaker:and the one foot in front of the other.
Speaker:But every once in a while,
Speaker:you have to consult the map and get a
Speaker:bigger picture of what you’re doing.
Speaker:You need to look up and take in the
Speaker:horizon,
Speaker:or glance behind you to see how far
Speaker:you’ve advanced up the mountain and
Speaker:how much longer you have to go.
Speaker:You might even take a break and
Speaker:consider the whole reason for climbing
Speaker:the mountain in the first place!
Speaker:In any case,
Speaker:good mountaineers have both
Speaker:skills—they pay attention to the
Speaker:gravel beneath their boots,
Speaker:but also look up and around them and
Speaker:engage in the broader task.
Speaker:The ideal conversation,
Speaker:then,
Speaker:would be a comfortable mix of the first
Speaker:and second of our examples above.
Speaker:For instance,
Speaker:instead of continuing to dwell on the
Speaker:students who quit,
Speaker:and exactly when they quit and why,
Speaker:Speaker A could take a metaphorical
Speaker:step back,
Speaker:allow the conversation to breathe a
Speaker:little,
Speaker:and take the opportunity to chunk up.
Speaker:Similarly,
Speaker:three or four chunking up questions
Speaker:into the second conversation is a good
Speaker:time to stop talking abstractly and
Speaker:probe for some specifics.
Speaker:Conversational Extremist .- The
Speaker:Nitpicker.
Speaker:In our examples,
Speaker:chunking up or down is something we can
Speaker:locate in a single question or comment.
Speaker:But it can often be more subtle than
Speaker:this.
Speaker:“Nitpickers” are people who have a
Speaker:longstanding tendency to have
Speaker:conversations constantly take place on
Speaker:a concrete,
Speaker:literal,
Speaker:and detailed level.
Speaker:The result can be a conversational
Speaker:style that is felt by others to be very
Speaker:dull,
Speaker:dragging,
Speaker:and uninspired.
Speaker:It’s like the conversation gets
Speaker:“stuck in the weeds” and never
Speaker:really launches.
Speaker:This is the person who,
Speaker:when you tell them you’ve met the
Speaker:love of your life,
Speaker:will be curious about what time in the
Speaker:morning you met them and what their
Speaker:name is and whether you spell that name
Speaker:with one L or two.
Speaker:We tend to become conversational
Speaker:nitpickers ourselves for a few reasons.
Speaker:We may be anxious and trying to control
Speaker:the course of the conversation but
Speaker:inadvertently keep it muzzled to
Speaker:endless mundane details.
Speaker:We may be bored ourselves.
Speaker:The way out is simple .- If you find
Speaker:that you or your listener is getting
Speaker:bored or distracted,
Speaker:sit back (sometimes literally!)
Speaker:and ask an open-ended,
Speaker:completely abstract question.
Speaker:Say something about an intangible
Speaker:concept.
Speaker:Introduce a metaphor,
Speaker:or even a controversial and nuanced
Speaker:opinion.
Speaker:This should kick the conversation back
Speaker:into gear.
Speaker:Conversational Extremist .- The
Speaker:Philosopher.
Speaker:The other extreme is the person who
Speaker:never,
Speaker:ever comes down from some towering
Speaker:abstract conversational heights and
Speaker:seems to always be looking down at
Speaker:humans and all the petty details of
Speaker:their lives ...a bit like a philosopher.
Speaker:These are the people who will
Speaker:constantly try to make isolate
Speaker:observations or single anecdotes mean
Speaker:something about a grander political,
Speaker:social,
Speaker:or philosophical narrative.
Speaker:You might want to rant a little about
Speaker:someone who was late,
Speaker:and they respond with a
Speaker:deep-and-meaningful deconstruction of
Speaker:the entire notion of lateness,
Speaker:of all mankind’s tendencies to rebel
Speaker:against artificial segmentation of this
Speaker:imaginary construct called time,
Speaker:and to finish off,
Speaker:some complex psychoanalysis of the late
Speaker:person—not just this person in
Speaker:question,
Speaker:but all people who are late.
Speaker:The conversational philosopher is
Speaker:someone who is always looking for
Speaker:theories,
Speaker:patterns,
Speaker:and overarching themes,
Speaker:but this can come across as pompous,
Speaker:cold,
Speaker:and irrelevant.
Speaker:The solution,
Speaker:here,
Speaker:is also obvious .- Come back to earth
Speaker:with a question about this person’s
Speaker:specific life in the here and now.
Speaker:This should immediately anchor and
Speaker:ground the conversation,
Speaker:with a side effect of making you seem
Speaker:more human,
Speaker:more approachable,
Speaker:and more relaxed.
Speaker:Chunking up or down,
Speaker:then,
Speaker:is not just a cognitive exercise about
Speaker:how information is managed.
Speaker:It’s also about the degree of
Speaker:openness or closedness in a
Speaker:conversation,
Speaker:the overall sense of flow,
Speaker:and the extent that either levity or
Speaker:seriousness is allowed to dominate.
Speaker:Use chunking up questions when you want
Speaker:to summarize,
Speaker:contextualize,
Speaker:consolidate,
Speaker:or get some distance—theoretical or
Speaker:emotional.
Speaker:This is a focus on an overarching
Speaker:organization,
Speaker:on purpose and intention.
Speaker:Use chunking down questions when you
Speaker:want to expand on some point,
Speaker:zoom in,
Speaker:confirm,
Speaker:or get to grips with the more
Speaker:“real” aspects of the conversation.
Speaker:This is a focus on how the overarching
Speaker:themes express themselves in specific
Speaker:ways,
Speaker:on unique experience,
Speaker:and on the details - who,
Speaker:where,
Speaker:when,
Speaker:how,
Speaker:what,
Speaker:and why.
Speaker:Finally,
Speaker:pay attention to chunking in conflict
Speaker:situations.
Speaker:You may discover that at least part of
Speaker:the problem is that two people are
Speaker:talking with different chunking
Speaker:tendencies.
Speaker:For example,
Speaker:your boss may call you in with the
Speaker:intention of discussing an issue.
Speaker:Your boss keeps listing out all
Speaker:instances of this issue and expanding
Speaker:on the details of each.
Speaker:You get impatient because you are eager
Speaker:to understand what all of it
Speaker:means—what is the single insight or
Speaker:conclusion you are meant to come to?
Speaker:Your boss sees you wanting to boil
Speaker:everything down and find some common
Speaker:cause for each transgression,
Speaker:but assumes this means you are not
Speaker:accepting the fact that there are many
Speaker:offenses,
Speaker:not just one.
Speaker:You see your boss endlessly listing
Speaker:grievances but without synthesizing
Speaker:them into anything you can act on.
Speaker:And round and round you both talk,
Speaker:both unable to reach one another
Speaker:because you’re operating at
Speaker:completely different levels of detail.
Speaker:When communication has devolved to this
Speaker:extent,
Speaker:the way back to a shared frame of
Speaker:reference is to ask questions or make
Speaker:comments that gradually close the gap.
Speaker:“What is that an example of?"
Speaker:“Is there something that connects all
Speaker:these observations?"
Speaker:“What one thing do you want me to
Speaker:take from this conversation?"
Speaker:On the other hand,
Speaker:if you’re having a conflict with
Speaker:someone who is being overly vague and
Speaker:abstract,
Speaker:try to help them zoom in by asking
Speaker:things like - “Can you give me a
Speaker:specific example of what you’re
Speaker:talking about?"
Speaker:“When did this event happen?
Speaker:With whom?
Speaker:How?"
Speaker:“Can you pinpoint the exact moment it
Speaker:all went wrong?"
Speaker:Think Before You Speak.
Speaker:“I just call it like I see it."
Speaker:“I’m being honest."
Speaker:“That’s not what I meant to say."
Speaker:“I’m just being me."
Speaker:“I don’t do small talk."
Speaker:Have you ever said any of the above?
Speaker:One major impediment to health,
Speaker:effective communication is a set of
Speaker:subtle but very damaging beliefs about
Speaker:what is actually required of us as
Speaker:humans when we speak to others.
Speaker:Some of these beliefs come from the
Speaker:idea that as long as we are authentic,
Speaker:sincere,
Speaker:and share our emotions,
Speaker:that’s enough;
Speaker:in other words,
Speaker:our intentions matter,
Speaker:and how we articulate ourselves is less
Speaker:important.
Speaker:Nothing could be further from the truth!
Speaker:Good communicators know that you cannot
Speaker:just,
Speaker:well,
Speaker:blurt out whatever enters your mind.
Speaker:You need to be deliberate.
Speaker:You need to consciously filter what you
Speaker:say.
Speaker:You need to speak with purpose and
Speaker:discipline.
Speaker:If you’ve ever said something you
Speaker:later regretted or really “put your
Speaker:foot in it,” then this is a sign that
Speaker:you could use more deliberation in the
Speaker:way you communicate!
Speaker:The first thing is to subtly challenge
Speaker:the idea that communication is solely
Speaker:about expressing yourself,
Speaker:your position,
Speaker:or your emotions.
Speaker:It is not really relevant whether you
Speaker:have a strong feeling about something,
Speaker:whether you feel like you’re right
Speaker:(or even if you are right!),
Speaker:or whether you are overcome by this or
Speaker:that impulse in the moment.
Speaker:Since communication is a social
Speaker:activity,
Speaker:it involves others,
Speaker:and that automatically means that a
Speaker:portion of all communication is simply
Speaker:not about you.
Speaker:People who understand and work with
Speaker:this insight are ultimately better at
Speaker:communication than those who keep on
Speaker:stubbornly insisting “it’s not my
Speaker:fault that they misunderstood me!"
Speaker:Being a conscious and careful
Speaker:communicator means you avoid causing
Speaker:offense or misunderstanding,
Speaker:you boost your credibility and maturity
Speaker:in other peoples’ eyes,
Speaker:and you generally keep yourself out of
Speaker:trouble!
Speaker:Speaking without thinking,
Speaker:however,
Speaker:often occurs because we’re impatient,
Speaker:we’re conversational narcissists
Speaker:(more on this later in the book),
Speaker:we are not good at listening,
Speaker:or simply we’re excited and get
Speaker:carried away with sharing what we want
Speaker:to share.
Speaker:Not everything you think and feel needs
Speaker:to be shared.
Speaker:Not everything that pops into your head
Speaker:needs to be expressed.
Speaker:To decide what qualifies an idea to be
Speaker:shared,
Speaker:ask yourself the following questions -
Speaker:1. Do I have good motives?
Speaker:Is what you’re going to say helpful
Speaker:or useful to yourself or anyone else?
Speaker:Be honest about what your motives are.
Speaker:Many people butt in during
Speaker:conversations to share some tidbit of
Speaker:information that is completely
Speaker:irrelevant,
Speaker:simply because it satisfies their own
Speaker:ego to say something and impress others.
Speaker:Be real and assess whether what
Speaker:you’re saying moves things forward
Speaker:and contributes to the shared goal of
Speaker:the conversation (i.e.,
Speaker:not some hidden agenda of your own).
Speaker:Some people will say something along
Speaker:the lines of “if you can’t say
Speaker:something nice,
Speaker:don’t say anything at all."
Speaker:But sometimes,
Speaker:you will have to express something
Speaker:that’s not “nice,” especially if
Speaker:you are defending a boundary or
Speaker:addressing conflict.
Speaker:Still,
Speaker:your motives should be to share any
Speaker:grievance or disagreement with the
Speaker:intention of clarifying and resolving
Speaker:it,
Speaker:rather than to blame and shame.
Speaker:This is why motive matters.
Speaker:You may be able to fool the other
Speaker:person that you are saying something
Speaker:out of concern or genuine
Speaker:misunderstanding,
Speaker:but at least be honest with yourself
Speaker:and check whether you’re speaking for
Speaker:some other,
Speaker:less noble reason.
Speaker:2. Is it true?
Speaker:Opinions,
Speaker:perspectives,
Speaker:and desires are one thing.
Speaker:But ask if,
Speaker:beyond this,
Speaker:you are actually saying something you
Speaker:know to be a falsehood.
Speaker:This may seem an obvious point to
Speaker:labor,
Speaker:but often we insert little falsehoods
Speaker:into what we say without being
Speaker:conscious of it.
Speaker:We exaggerate,
Speaker:we minimize,
Speaker:we omit important information,
Speaker:or we present our best guess as more
Speaker:certain than it really is.
Speaker:Again,
Speaker:it ties into motive.
Speaker:Are we genuinely and honestly sharing
Speaker:what we know,
Speaker:or are we trying to come across as an
Speaker:expert?
Speaker:In the realm of our own perceptions and
Speaker:experiences,
Speaker:of course,
Speaker:nothing is really “true” or
Speaker:“false”—it is our unique
Speaker:experience.
Speaker:But be careful that you never act as
Speaker:though something being true for you
Speaker:automatically makes it true for another
Speaker:person.
Speaker:Here,
Speaker:being truthful means owning and
Speaker:acknowledging your own perspective,
Speaker:while not overstepping and behaving as
Speaker:though that perspective were truth.
Speaker:3. Am I breaking confidences?
Speaker:It goes without saying - never share
Speaker:something you’ve been asked to keep
Speaker:private.
Speaker:Gossip is awful and degrades the
Speaker:speaker,
Speaker:the listener,
Speaker:and the person being talked about in
Speaker:equal measure,
Speaker:but you can still break confidences
Speaker:even without technically being in
Speaker:gossip territory.
Speaker:Ask yourself this question .- If the
Speaker:person you’re talking about was
Speaker:present,
Speaker:would they be okay with hearing what
Speaker:you’re saying about them?
Speaker:4. Is it considerate?
Speaker:No,
Speaker:you don’t always have to be kind.
Speaker:Some situations in life call for
Speaker:communication even when we don’t like
Speaker:or approve of the person in front of
Speaker:us,
Speaker:or where “kindness” isn’t really
Speaker:appropriate.
Speaker:But you do have to be civil,
Speaker:polite,
Speaker:and considerate.
Speaker:You do have to show the other person a
Speaker:degree of non-negotiable respect.
Speaker:Sometimes,
Speaker:what you want to say may be true,
Speaker:it may be necessary,
Speaker:and you may be well within your rights
Speaker:to say it—but that still doesn’t
Speaker:entitle you to be rude about it.
Speaker:In this case,
Speaker:remember that etiquette and manners are
Speaker:not something you do merely for the
Speaker:other person’s sake,
Speaker:but something you do to communicate a
Speaker:degree of respect for yourself.
Speaker:An option is to use the THINK
Speaker:acronym—which stands for True,
Speaker:Helpful,
Speaker:Inspiring,
Speaker:Necessary,
Speaker:or Kind.
Speaker:As we’ve seen,
Speaker:you don’t need to have all of these,
Speaker:but if what you want to say ticks only
Speaker:one or two boxes,
Speaker:you’re probably better off keeping
Speaker:silent or rewording your message.
Speaker:All of this can only be achieved when
Speaker:you do something essential - stop and
Speaker:think.
Speaker:Get into the habit of pausing before
Speaker:you talk,
Speaker:or even just mentally pausing.
Speaker:Even a few seconds of forethought can
Speaker:be enough (deep down,
Speaker:we usually know whether something is a
Speaker:good idea or not even without going
Speaker:through the above questions—we just
Speaker:need to slow down enough to realize
Speaker:that we know!).
Speaker:If you’re not really sure,
Speaker:then err on the side of staying silent.
Speaker:It’s always possible to speak up
Speaker:later;
Speaker:it’s never possible to un-say
Speaker:what’s already been said.
Speaker:Understanding “Clean Communication”
Speaker:.
Speaker:Imagine that a woman says to her
Speaker:husband,
Speaker:“Can you please take out the trash?"
Speaker:Now imagine that she instead says,
Speaker:“Can you please take out the trash
Speaker:for a change?"
Speaker:You can probably see which one is
Speaker:“clean” communication,
Speaker:and which one is a little dirty.
Speaker:Saying “for a change” adds a
Speaker:hostile blaming element that is not
Speaker:part of the main message,
Speaker:but forms a secondary piece of
Speaker:communication.
Speaker:This charge may be added in consciously
Speaker:or unconsciously.
Speaker:On the other hand,
Speaker:clean,
Speaker:smooth communication conveys a message
Speaker:without adding in any kind of
Speaker:“negative charge."
Speaker:Any time your communication is serving
Speaker:a double role of delivering extra
Speaker:shame,
Speaker:anger,
Speaker:ridicule,
Speaker:guilt-tripping,
Speaker:manipulation,
Speaker:lies,
Speaker:and so on,
Speaker:it’s no longer clean.
Speaker:Imagine the husband hears the second
Speaker:phrase from above and responds,
Speaker:“Take it out yourself."
Speaker:The wife may then (rightly)
Speaker:see this as an attack and respond,
Speaker:“Why are you so mean to me?
Speaker:All I did was ask you nicely to take
Speaker:the trash out!"
Speaker:As you can imagine,
Speaker:a fight ensues,
Speaker:in part because the wife’s initial
Speaker:communication was unconsciously unclean.
Speaker:That didn’t stop her husband from
Speaker:responding to what she was really
Speaker:communicating!
Speaker:Whether consciously unclean (arguably a
Speaker:bit easier to deal with)
Speaker:or unconsciously unclean,
Speaker:this type of communication is a kind of
Speaker:anti-communication.
Speaker:It creates misunderstandings,
Speaker:hurt feelings,
Speaker:and barriers.
Speaker:Have you ever had a conversation with
Speaker:someone who on the surface seemed to be
Speaker:saying and doing all the right things,
Speaker:but you still somehow felt bad
Speaker:afterward?
Speaker:Maybe you had a weird physical
Speaker:sensation in your gut,
Speaker:or you felt like something was amiss.
Speaker:It might have felt like you were being
Speaker:lied to,
Speaker:manipulated,
Speaker:or subtly insulted ...chances are,
Speaker:you were the recipient of some unclean
Speaker:communication.
Speaker:Let’s take a look at another example.
Speaker:The wife says to the husband,
Speaker:“Can you please take the trash out?"
Speaker:The husband hears this and,
Speaker:in his mind,
Speaker:interprets it to mean something like,
Speaker:“You’re a lazy good-for-nothing and
Speaker:I have to talk to you like a child!"
Speaker:He responds in the same way,
Speaker:“Take it out yourself!"
Speaker:As you can see,
Speaker:the misunderstanding is now on the part
Speaker:of the listener/receiver.
Speaker:Here,
Speaker:the husband is overly sensitive,
Speaker:and has allowed his own issues to
Speaker:distort the message he’s receiving.
Speaker:Again,
Speaker:the communication is unclean.
Speaker:Whether snags happen on side A or side
Speaker:B,
Speaker:and whether they are done consciously
Speaker:or unconsciously,
Speaker:they can degrade communication.
Speaker:Even worse,
Speaker:little snares and hiccups can compound
Speaker:over time,
Speaker:creating animus and a feeling of
Speaker:negativity that is hard to shift once
Speaker:it’s underway.
Speaker:This “toxic residue” can lead to
Speaker:more intense conflict in time or even a
Speaker:big blow out,
Speaker:so it’s best to keep on top of
Speaker:communication as it happens,
Speaker:practicing,
Speaker:if you will,
Speaker:a kind of routine “communication
Speaker:hygiene."
Speaker:This cleans up little misunderstandings
Speaker:and conflicts before they become big
Speaker:ones.
Speaker:You’ll know that there is some
Speaker:residue in your communication with
Speaker:someone when one or both of you feels -
Speaker:A little wary,
Speaker:nervous,
Speaker:or uncomfortable.
Speaker:Any combativeness and defensiveness.
Speaker:Lies,
Speaker:deception,
Speaker:or lowered trust.
Speaker:General upset or high emotional
Speaker:intensity.
Speaker:Now,
Speaker:the “dirt” in communication can be
Speaker:accidental,
Speaker:or it can be deliberate.
Speaker:If it’s accidental,
Speaker:the idea is to stop,
Speaker:take a step back,
Speaker:and address it.
Speaker:Many innocent mistakes turn
Speaker:not-so-innocent if not addressed in
Speaker:this way.
Speaker:“Hey,
Speaker:I just wanted to talk to you about
Speaker:something.
Speaker:You asked me earlier to take the trash
Speaker:out,
Speaker:and it felt like you were kind of
Speaker:implying that I don’t pull my weight
Speaker:or something.
Speaker:I don’t know if I’ve got that
Speaker:wrong;
Speaker:is that what you were trying to say?"
Speaker:Importantly,
Speaker:in addressing something,
Speaker:you need to work hard not to introduce
Speaker:more unclean language!
Speaker:If,
Speaker:however,
Speaker:the unclean communication is intended,
Speaker:then the approach is to go in to
Speaker:conflict resolution.
Speaker:“Well,
Speaker:actually,
Speaker:if we’re going to be honest about it,
Speaker:I have been feeling like I’m doing
Speaker:too much of the housework lately."
Speaker:The thing is,
Speaker:communication can be clean even during
Speaker:conflict.
Speaker:So long as messages are being shared
Speaker:without introducing extra negativity,
Speaker:then the conversation is clean and
Speaker:likely to be productive.
Speaker:First make a promise to yourself that
Speaker:you will use clean language as often as
Speaker:you can.
Speaker:Make a commitment that you will be
Speaker:straightforward,
Speaker:honest,
Speaker:and respectful,
Speaker:and will never resort to
Speaker:underhandedness,
Speaker:passive aggression,
Speaker:or innuendo.
Speaker:This takes a degree of conscious
Speaker:maturity as well as discipline.
Speaker:According to clean communication
Speaker:experts Matthew McKay,
Speaker:Patrick Fanning,
Speaker:and Kim Paleg,
Speaker:the ideal communication attitude is
Speaker:"taking responsibility for the effect
Speaker:of what you say."
Speaker:It also means owning the consequences
Speaker:of your speech,
Speaker:even,
Speaker:and maybe especially if,
Speaker:you’re not quite conscious of what
Speaker:you’re doing.
Speaker:Do your best to create a conversational
Speaker:space where you can work honestly and
Speaker:respectfully through any conflicts or
Speaker:disagreements.
Speaker:Leave out harmful speech,
Speaker:accusations,
Speaker:“barbed” language,
Speaker:and insinuations that might hurt and
Speaker:attack another person—and do it no
Speaker:matter how upset or wronged you feel.
Speaker:Follow the “ten commandments of clean
Speaker:language” to keep you on the straight
Speaker:and narrow and spare yourself and
Speaker:others a load of unnecessary drama -
Speaker:1. Don’t use judgment words and
Speaker:loaded terms (“pigsty” or
Speaker:“lazy”).
Speaker:2. Don’t use “global” labels,
Speaker:i.e.,
Speaker:make sweeping generalizations or use
Speaker:absolute statements (“you haven’t
Speaker:taken out the trash in two weeks”
Speaker:rather than “you’re an untidy
Speaker:person,” which takes a swipe at the
Speaker:person’s entire being,
Speaker:not just their behavior).
Speaker:3. Don’t send “you” messages of
Speaker:blame and accusation (“I’m
Speaker:stressed” is better than “you’re
Speaker:stressing me”).
Speaker:4. Stay away from old history—stick
Speaker:to the issue at hand and let bygones go.
Speaker:5. Avoid negative comparisons
Speaker:(“You’re a slob just like my ex
Speaker:was”).
Speaker:6. Never threaten,
Speaker:even subtly (“If you can’t be
Speaker:bothered to do the trash,
Speaker:it makes me wonder why I bother to do
Speaker:any of my chores”).
Speaker:Control and manipulation only create
Speaker:escalating defensiveness.
Speaker:7. Describe your feelings rather than
Speaker:use them as a weapon or a “point”
Speaker:you’ve scored (“You’ve really
Speaker:gone and riled me up this morning!
Speaker:Why do you always insist on hurting me
Speaker:like this?”).
Speaker:8. Keep your body language open,
Speaker:relaxed,
Speaker:and receptive.
Speaker:Call off a difficult conversation until
Speaker:you’re calmer,
Speaker:if necessary.
Speaker:9. Use whole messages.
Speaker:Incomplete messages are more likely to
Speaker:be taken out of context.
Speaker:A whole message contains observations,
Speaker:thoughts,
Speaker:feelings,
Speaker:and needs/wants.
Speaker:For example,
Speaker:“I see the trash is piling up
Speaker:(observation),
Speaker:and I realize you haven’t taken it
Speaker:out for a long time (thoughts).
Speaker:When I see that I have to do it,
Speaker:even though it’s your chore,
Speaker:I feel overwhelmed and annoyed.
Speaker:I’d really like for you to keep up
Speaker:your end of the housework as we agreed
Speaker:(wants/needs)."
Speaker:10.
Speaker:Be clear.
Speaker:If you have a question,
Speaker:ask.
Speaker:If you want something,
Speaker:request it.
Speaker:Avoid using passive language,
Speaker:innuendo,
Speaker:or hints (“Is there some special
Speaker:reason you’ve decided to let us all
Speaker:live in filth,
Speaker:or ...?”).
Speaker:Be direct and clear.
Speaker:Summary -
Speaker:•Poor communication arises as a
Speaker:result of a mismatch of perspectives,
Speaker:approach,
Speaker:or conversational skill.
Speaker:People process information differently,
Speaker:but to avoid misunderstandings,
Speaker:communicate consciously and use the
Speaker:“ladder of inference."
Speaker:It shows the unique way that people use
Speaker:their experiences to make meaning -
Speaker:observations > selected data > meanings
Speaker:> assumptions > conclusions > beliefs >
Speaker:actions.
Speaker:•Conflict can occur when people are
Speaker:on different rungs.
Speaker:To improve communication,
Speaker:see where people are and how their
Speaker:ladder of inference is working for
Speaker:them,
Speaker:then speak to that,
Speaker:in sequence,
Speaker:and without blame or shame.
Speaker:•Good communicators deliberately
Speaker:create their own frames during
Speaker:conversations and position their line
Speaker:of thinking by using specially chosen
Speaker:words,
Speaker:expressions,
Speaker:and images.
Speaker:Change frames and you change meaning.
Speaker:•Deliberately engineer your
Speaker:conversational frame and invite the
Speaker:other person in using pre-existing
Speaker:concepts they’re familiar with to
Speaker:improve the chances they’ll be
Speaker:receptive.
Speaker:Remember that reality is fixed,
Speaker:but the meaning of reality is dynamic
Speaker:and subject to change.
Speaker:•Chunking is about the way we group
Speaker:information.
Speaker:Chunking up is grouping specific
Speaker:instances into a larger overall
Speaker:abstract pattern or theory,
Speaker:while chunking down makes inferences
Speaker:from the general to the specific.
Speaker:Keeping the level of detail varied and
Speaker:appropriate creates a better flowing
Speaker:conversation than one that relies too
Speaker:heavily on chunking up or chunking down.
Speaker:•It is a mistake to think that
Speaker:authenticity,
Speaker:expression,
Speaker:and sincerity are enough—how we
Speaker:articulate ourselves matters.
Speaker:Consciously filter what you say .- Is
Speaker:it true,
Speaker:kind,
Speaker:and helpful?
Speaker:•Take responsibility for what you say
Speaker:and practice clean
Speaker:communication—i.e.,
Speaker:without hidden negative meanings.
Speaker:This has been
Speaker:How to Speak Effectively:
Speaker:Influence,
Speaker:Engage,
Speaker:& Charm (How to be More Likable and Charismatic Book 29) Written by
Speaker:Patrick King, narrated by russell newton.
