Don’t tell us over and over again how something’s a generalization and doesn’t apply to everyone. Duh. Some use of generalities are necessary with these topics. #
Generalizations. We all use them. They’re a necessity inherent to the world of interpersonal communication. They facilitate conversation by allowing people to make their points easily and quickly by pointing to observable trends. Whole sections of social psychology textbooks (and others) are devoted to the concept of generalizations and stereotypes and their uses. It is probably impossible to get through an entire conversation without at some point using at least one generalization. It is simply the most efficient way to handle the vast amount of information at our disposal. We have to categorize it, mentally placing each bit into groupings with other bits of information that are very similar. We make mental estimates of behavioral trends based on our own experiences, knowledge, and observations. I doubt that there is anyone who readily has actual quantitative data on hand for every subject under the sun, who can point to such statistics and say definitively, “This is the way things are.” So, we generalize, a habit that is obviously limited by the availability of relevant data.
In theory, it is understood that generalizations do not speak to every person in every situation under every circumstance. Statistics themselves are only probabilities, based on past behavior, predicting what is most likely to occur in the future under similar circumstances. In actual practice, however, we find that the problem with the human makeup is that we often forget this margin of error. On the one hand, we make generalizations and begin to think that this applies to a far larger segment of the population than it actually does. This is, of course, somewhat necessary, as stated previously because if we were to point out every possible exception to the ‘rule’ all the time, no productive communication would ever occur. In many cases a compromise is reached by pointing out only those exceptions that are most relevant to the discussion at hand. But even then it is sometimes all too easy to dismiss them perfunctorily, whether because they don’t fit our generalized model or because we don’t like the implications or because they are too difficult to deal with or for some other reason.
On the other hand, some people hear generalizations that other people make and will either accept them as being all-encompassing or will quickly criticize it for not acknowledging all the exceptions. The former group may quickly grasp the point being made but then generalize said point too far, falling prey to their own naiveté. The latter group all too often misses the point being made in their critical frenzy, falling prey to their own cynical rationality. A balance of both approaches is, as usual, to be found somewhere in the middle—recognizing the point of the generalization while acknowledging the fact that it does not speak to all people everywhere in all circumstances. The generalization is a shortcut of sorts, facilitating the cataloguing of societal trends. The naysayers are the ones who are either insecure or who merely like to argue with any philosophy not their own, or both. (Whether their points are valid or not is often irrelevant, as their approach to criticizing the generalization usually stonewalls further discussion.)
Finding this balance is a continual effort, requiring the mind to always be engaged at all times, sifting and filtering, striving to find the truth of the matter through open discourse and rigorous study. Critical thinking is a strong skill to possess because it allows us to first be able to make better and more accurate generalizations and then to be able to reason through other generalizations and critique them for their accuracy. It is a difficult task, to be sure, but one well worth undertaking.
Tags: communication, critical-thinking, generalizations, social-psychology, stereotypes
I’m reminded again of just how important clear communication is. I actually had my employment with my temporary services agency terminated a couple of days early due to what ended up being a pretty major miscommunication. (My contract was to expire at the end of this week, anyway, since I start my new job at Purdue on Monday.) What started simply as an erroneous assumption became something more significant because people failed to listen appropriately and failed to say what they actually meant.
Communication is a 4-part exercise—Person A has to listen, Person B has to clearly articulate the message, Person A then has to clearly articulate in response, and Person B has to then listen to that response. If even just one part of this process breaks down, the message fails to be communicated effectively, oftentimes leading to uncomfortable or angry confrontations.
The philosophy of our politically correct culture doesn’t always help the process of communication. We have attempted to remove, in the name of fairness and sensitivity, all language that would be offensive, that would potentially hurt someone else’s feelings. Negative language has been pushed aside as much as possible because we don’t want to give cause for anyone to feel bad about themselves (or about us). What we end up with is a form of dialogue that beats around the bush without always finding its way to the point. Verbal exchange hints at and implies actual meaning, as we find ways to soften our words.
What’s sad and frustrating about this is that, in a discussion of two, one may walk away feeling like good, productive discussion was had while the other is left feeling confused and unclear about the resolution. The former may think the message was communicated and that the job will get done properly, and the latter may either wonder what the job is supposed to be or think he knows what it is and do it, only to find out later that the actual job was something completely different. Or the former may communicate his dislike for the latter, only using terms that are ‘warm’ and ‘non-confrontational’, which may leave the latter thinking he is well-liked and appreciated. The possible combinations for confusion are endless.
No one likes confrontation, and most people will do anything to avoid it, if possible. Where one runs into trouble, however, is when confrontation is unavoidable. Rather than facing it openly, honestly, and humbly, one might couch his words in softer language, which, in turn, may not communicate the concerns or criticisms as effectively.
Honesty is a virtue, however much it may hurt sometimes. The real world tends to be harsh and cruel, and while we as communicators can avoid behaving similarly, we can still speak honestly and openly in a way that speaks actual feelings and thoughts, rather than shadows of the same. Smoke and mirrors have no place in communication (unless your intent is to deceive). Where possible speak plainly, speak clearly, and speak with a frankness that, althought possibly uncomfortable, is clear, concise, and precise. Add to that the skill of listening as others are speaking, hearing what is said, what is implied, and what is left unspoken, and you will find, rather than a foe, a great friend in open communication.
Tags: communication, culture, definitions, misunderstandings, political-correctness
It’s always interesting to observe some of the things that people do that they don’t realize they do. Subtle, and not-so-subtle, nuances in body language are sometimes more revealing than what they say. I talked with a fellow today who spent most of our hour-long conversation with his eyes closed. What it looked like, from my perspective, were a series of really long blinks. His head would drop a fraction of an inch, his eyelids would droop, and there they would stay as he uttered two or three sentences. Then, his head would pop back up, and his eyelids would flutter open. It was really quite distracting, yet I couldn’t help but be amused. It was clearly a long-term conversational habit, one that prevented him from ever really making eye contact.
It’s really quite interesting how few people are able to maintain eye contact in face-to-face dialogue. It’s a phenomenom that I try to constantly be aware of, especially in myself, because I know that I often find it difficult and uncomfortable to maintain eye contact for long periods of time. Eye contact is actually a very intimate form of communicate. Everyone has heard the expression, “The eyes are the windows to the soul.” This may be a good explanation as to why so many of us find it hard to develop good eye contact in our discussions with other people. We don’t like revealing ourselves that way, or we don’t want to send the wrong signals (easy enough to do in a culture that is already very sexually charged), or both. Yet, I think maintaining good eye contact is actually a critical characteristic of good communication. It conveys a certain level of trust in the other person because you are, in essence, saying, I am opening myself up to you and I am trusting you to not take advantage of that. It can help make the discussion more comfortable (even for uncomfortable topics) and encourage greater openness and honesty. So, good eye contact is a skill that I strive for and encourage in others. It is amazing how much of an impact a little bit of body language has on verbal dialogue.
Tags: communication, human-behavior, psychology
The place where I’m currently working is in the midst of some major transitions. The guy they’ve hired to effect the changes has placed a huge emphasis on improving the quality and quantity of communication within the organization. Since I’m a temporary contractor and since my work consists of doing nothing but data entry and since the terminal at which I sit is right in the middle of the workplace, I have the opportunity to witness more than most individuals might. What I’ve noticed is that this guy is striving to build the employees of this company into a family, in part by improving their overall communication. It has been a fascinating process to
watch, and I have found myself laughing a number of times while I work. (One of the managers has repeatedly been brought out to the floor, bringing all work in the place to a screeching halt, so he can practice his communication skills while his boss, the fellow effecting all these changes, watches and ‘grades’ him. The results have been often amusing.) In effect, the ultimate goal is that, by improving the level of communication in the company, costs will go down and the business will grow.
The application of this readily transfers to the church and the Body of Christ. How often do churches break and split because communication breaks down? How often do Christians hurt one another, not to mention unbelievers, emotionally, spiritually, and psychologically because clear communication could not be accomplished? To some extent, I think we can take some lessons from this guy—good communication is absolutely essential in order for any organization to grow and thrive. This is no less true within the Body. They call it good business sense. We call it fellowship. Either way, the end product is the same—efficiency increases, individuals function as a single unit, and growth and prosperity are nearly guaranteed. In order for this work, though, everyone has to
participate, which means everyone has to have a good attitude and a spirit of mutual cooperation. Honesty really is the best policy. Temper it with openness, understanding, grace, and humility, and positive results are nearly inevitable. So, practice your communication skills, and don’t be surprised when others response positively toward you.
Tags: communication, fellowship, psychology, relationships, religion, the-body-of-christ, the-church
Communication seems to be something of a lost art these days. I find that when communication breaks down, the cause is either that someone simply failed to communicate or that someone didn’t quite know how to communicate. The solution to the first cause is relatively simple—just do it. The solution to the second poses a bit more of a challenge. Breakdown in written communication is typically due to a lack of knowledge and/or skill at the mechanics of writing
(something I will not go into here since, for most of us, grammar, punctuation, and spelling was beaten into us in high school English classes). Breakdown in verbal communication is a horse of another color, however. Here’s an example:
I briefly interacted with a gentleman this afternoon (about a 5-minute conversation). We started out on common ground (and common understanding), but when I walked away a few moments later, I felt a bit chagrined to realize I had no idea about what it was he ended up
talking. Somehow, in those few, brief moments of conversation, he had managed to completely lose me so that I wasn’t quite sure what point he had made (and he had made a point, as was apparent by the look of satisfaction on his face at the end of the conversation).
Looking back on that conversation, I realized, at least in part, what contributed to the breakdown in communication—he had completely skipped over the explanation of certain assumptions and background information in his haste to make his point before we parted ways. This left me thinking that he was talking about one thing when, in reality, he was talking about a related, but different, thing.
American culture moves with increasing rapidity these days. We find better and more effective shortcuts for just about everything. What’s interesting to me is that we have as yet to find a more effective shortcut for good communication. The pace of culture does seem to have an effect on communication (though I would definitely love to see some stats on this). We have less time to do everything and more activities crammed into the same 24 hours. As a result, communication tends to suffer and misunderstandings occur (and we’ve all experienced the effects of that). Good communication requires conscientiousness on behalf of the communicator (not to mention good listening skills on the part of the listener) and requires the communicator to take the time necessary to 1) make sure the effort is actually made to communicate, 2) make sure the appropriate groundwork was laid upon which to build conversation, and 3) make sure the subsequent message was communicated adequately and clearly. In effect, good communication requires slowing down a little and paying attention to the little nuances of effective dialogue, something that few of us have yet to master.
Tags: assumptions, communication, misunderstandings, Writing
Well, Liz requested my thoughts on knowing when to speak up for your beliefs in a post-modern world, so here goes. (Liz, let me know if I’ve addressed your comment adequately.)
It’s true. It really is hard sometimes to know when to speak up in a post-modern world and when to just keep your mouth shut. So much of our culture today is driven by a philosophy of
non-offensiveness that squarely speaking your mind can often put you in a position of scorn and ridicule by your peers.
In addressing the post-modern culture, there are a couple of things we always have to be aware of, things that we recognize and with which we have to deal. We have to understand that, in general, there are two separate groups of post-moderns—the group that is composed of professing Christians and the group that is composed of unbelievers. Knowing to which group the individual or individuals with which you are conversing belongs greatly affects the approach you want to take in declaring and defending your beliefs. With the Christian group, you are able to cut a few more corners, take a more direct route to your personal statements of faith, and speak from a greater pool of common ground and understanding. With the unbelieving group, you will typically have to take more time to lay out the basic tenets of your beliefs before you can talk about the beliefs themselves, to clarify the assumptions and presuppositions that are
generally taken for granted in the Christian faith, to establish a level playing field where (hopefully) everyone understands the logical and philosophical starting point of everyone else. Of course, as I have entered in many more conversations recently with believer and unbeliever alike, I have come to understand that this simplistic demarcation is much more blurred than it once was. We are required to explicitly define our terms so that, even if we disagree with the other’s starting point, we at least understand where the other begins his logical and philosophical train of thought. And even so, it is not always appropriate to speak one’s mind.
Allow me to lay out my personal approach to speaking up and to speaking out about my beliefs. This has come from many experiences, both good and bad, and I am constantly checking myself to make sure I am acting in a way that is beneficial, uplifting, and constructive to all. The rule by which I live is this—I simply wait for the appropriate opportunity to speak. Sometimes I succeed at this; sometimes I do not. As I said before, sometimes it really is difficult to know when to speak up for what you believe in. There are many factors that I take into consideration when determining if the time is right for me to say my bit. A large portion of this consideration is in determining the frame of mind of my target audience. Some topics, just by the mere mention, will fire up certain individuals into a blind rage and passion of debate that makes a lot of noise but ultimately ends up going nowhere. Those are the sorts of discussions that I try to avoid because no matter what I say or how well I phrase my own arguments, ultimately it will amount
to little more than an itch that, once scratched, goes away and is immediately forgotten. The sorts of people with whom I am really most interested in conversing are those who are genuinely open to honest discussion, who have their own opinions and stances but who are
receptive to other opinions and who are willing to recognize that they, too, are human and fallible and who desire to correct any flaws in their own logic that may exist. Those are people to whom I am most willing to open my own heart and mind, to share what I believe and why, from whom I am most willing to accept constructive criticism and challenge of my beliefs and to whom I am most willing to reciprocate in kind. Those are the sorts of people who have helped me grow the most over the years. We may end up still disagreeing on what we believe and why, but in the process we have had an exchange of ideas and of relationship that leaves everyone changed, often for the better.
It’s difficult to converse with the post-modern who holds certain core values and beliefs to be in flux due to a lack of absolutes, but it is indeed possible through the clear explanation of personal values and beliefs and through humble and open dialogue between peers. When do I choose to speak my mind? When I feel my audience is open and receptive to my ideas. Sometimes I
end up in a debate that ends in a waste of time, but sometimes I don’t, and I leave the discourse feeling as though something truly great has happened.
Tags: absolute-truth, christianity, communication, culture, definitions, philosophy, postmodernism, relative-truth
Why is it that a person cannot talk about both the pros and cons of an issue without being perceived as taking the opposite side as everyone else? (And yes, this does involve that person being seen as supporting either side, depending on what position every other person holds.)
By the way, churches and Christians are not immune to this sort of behavior.
Tags: communication, discussion, pros-and-cons
It’s interesting. There have been several moments over the last few weeks where I have either read something on Xanga or overheard something that was said in casual conversation that have just caused me to think, “Hey, now. That’s not right.” And every nerve in my body was tingling because I just wanted to counter the statement, to “set ‘im right”, to correct what was such obvious foolishness and stupidity.
But what I’m learning is that so often it is just better to hold one’s tongue and say nothing. I have had to learn to stop and think, and ultimately I end up determining that, even had I said something, it would not have changed the opinion of the individual in question and would possibly have done more to hurt than to help. As much as I want to bring people to a correct view as I understand it (with humility, of course), I have to remind myself that many don’t want to be corrected or even necessarily led to the truth, as it would require a change to their personal worldview. About the best I can hope to do is continue my own search for the truth, refine my own worldview by what I know, and choose my opportunities to share with those who are eager to hear and learn and be shaped, as I hope they do for me. Sometimes, I just have to keep my mouth shut and let them find their own way.
Tags: communication, conflict, opinions, wisdom
I love irony. Right up until the point where it teaches me something about myself that I’d really rather not know.
I was laid low this morning by a singular realization. I love the written word. I love the way it can express a thought with an array of color, a depth of emotion, and a transcendance of thought. I love the way the written word gives me time and opportunity to fully articulate a thought, to express it the way I really mean to. The irony is this—in writing a response to a thought or an idea, I don’t always take the time to make sure I understand the original point. I sometimes find myself simply reacting rather than addressing the intended point, and in the process I end up missing the point altogether. I forget to ask the question, What is he/she saying here? Instead, I end up simply asking, albeit unconsciously, How can I react to this? What thoughts are spurred by what this individual is saying? I really need to learn to pay more attention, to ask the right questions, and to answer in kind. I need to be more thoughtful in my responses, in my interactions with others, because failure to do so can potentially cause great harm, embarrassment, and shame.
I need to learn wisdom.
Tags: communication, irony, misunderstandings, wisdom, Writing
Having read a couple of different discussions lately (here and here), I’ve had to wonder if we end up talking about the same thing. It seems like so much of the discussion would go more smoothly if we would first define our terms. Most words in the English language carry the same general meanings for everybody, but those same words can often be nuanced slightly differently for different people, depending on personal experiences. So,if a particular word is key to a discussion, it would make sense to clearly spell out how that word is defined initially before proceeding to make a point using that word. Otherwise, you end up running the risk of talking about two (or more) different things until someone finally figures it out and attempts to bring everyone to the same playing field.
Some words that have cropped up in recent discussions that seem to carry slightly different meanings for different people:
- Certainty
- Confidence
- Faith
- Trust
- Belief
- Reason
How I define such words may not be the way you define them, even though both our personal definitions are probably very similar. So, it may be advantageous to mutually define certain words (if possible) before proceeding with the dialogue.
Tags: communication, definitions, discussion
