Touro Communication Club Notes #74

Tourocommunicationclub.blogspot.com

Communication Quote of the Week

“Eloquence is thought on fire.”

William Jennings Bryan (1860-1925) U.S. reformer, orator, and lawyer. Three times the losing Democratic candidate for president, he advocated bimetallism, notably in his famous “Cross of Gold” speech (1896). As the winning prosecutor in the Scopes trial (1925), he upheld the right of the states to ban the teaching of evolution.

This Week!

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

2 pm – Room 223 – Midtown

Student Poetry Reading

Students of Professors Charles Borkhuis and Brenda Coultas will share their writing. A discussion of their experiences will follow.

A Note for Communicators:

Strategy: Disagreeing without being disagreeable.

Tactic: Know your facts and anticipate selective use of the facts.

In back-to-back speeches in two different locations, President Obama and former vice-president Dick Cheney clashed this week on national security. Obama promoted his agenda while Cheney justified the Bush administrations efforts. Each was forthright in his views.

For our Communication purposes, we need to examine disagreement as a fact of life in all communication. I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised that we have disagreement in our lives. We are all different people with different points of view. But often we are.

For many, a disagreement means a confrontation. A confrontation20means an argument. An argument means our emotions get all out of control. And that means a fight – yelling, screaming, physical attacks. So we sit on our disagreements. And it festers – like a cancer.

That’s why many of us avoid arguments as if it were the swine flu. We hate to confront because we think that is the only option we have when we are faced with a disagreement.

In the political arena, politicians learn to expect disagreement. They prepare for it. It is likely that Cheney will never persuade Obama and vice versa. Obama doesn’t need to persuade Cheney because Obama is now president. However, in a stalemate, the only resolution is power. Power of words is primary in a diplomatic resolution. When diplomacy breaks down, military power dominates.

Too often, in an argument, people have an opinion or a position and stick to it without var iation. Their feet are stuck in cement. The argument is so fraught with emotion that reason quickly vanishes. For the Communicator, there are many tools to be used. One is the question. Another is the request to understand the position. But all this needs presence of mind. And who wants that?

Contrary to the popular perception, the goal in any argument is light, not heat. People are more persuasive when they are calm and assume a “rational” approach. But who wants to be rational in a juicy argument?

Learning to disagree without being disagreeable is very difficult. It takes much preparation. It requires a thorough knowledge of the entire issue, an understanding of all sides and being able to take an opposing view

UPCOMING CONVERSATIONS:

June 3 – Impromptu Speaking –Speaking without apparent preparation on your feet is an acquired skill. We rarely think about what we are going to say in conversation, yet in a formal situation our brain freezes on us. Practicing this skill makes it possible to present oneself professionally at all times. In business, it is called the “Elevator Speech,” one which captures the essence of who you are what you do in 30 seconds or less, the time to travel in an elevator to your next appointment. Great fun!

June10 – Interviewing Strategies – One of the most practical communication skills is to be able to make a positive impression in a job interview. Questions are important, but preparation is crucial. Bring your resume and cover letter as we role play the applicant and the interviewer.

June 17 – “The Anatomy of Freedom” – This topic derived from the civil rights discussion after the Carvell program. Other ideas included “Is freedom really free?” Freedom is a fascinating universal subject which every person faces in some way all the time. Among many other authors, Erich Fromm, a well-known psychologist, wrote an influential book, “Escape from Freedom” The cartoonist Jules Feiffer wrote that we exchange one jail for another…Much to talk about.

What happened on Wednesday, May 20, 2009

“Talking to Women”

A dedicated group of Communicators were drawn to “Talking to Women.” Evenly divided between men and women, the primary information sources were Lorinda Moore, Anna Indelicato, Gena Bardwell, Meggy Lindsay and Pamela Sheppard. Waiting impatiently to respond were Brian Brown, Markus Vayndorf, James Millner, Carlisle Yearwood, Drani Gabu and Charles Mason. Hal Wicke led the discussion until he had to go to a Graduation Committee meeting; then Lorinda Moore took over, creating more interest in the topic.

Hal suggested that the group – women first – describe the behavior they regard as important in communication. Then the group could look for patterns in the behavior. From these patterns, we would look for productive strategies to talk to women.

“Respect” was the primary behavior that the women present expected in their communication. In her list, Anna included “no cursing,” “no angry tones,” “courtesy,” “some small talk as an ice breaker, but not a waste of time,” “expectation to learn,

Gena commented that she valued “cooperation,” conciliatory actions,” while looking for patterns of listening and responding. She is an “observer,” because “I can control only my own actions.”

[At this point, Meggy Lindsay took over the extensive note-taking. Hal has reconstructed the session from Meggy’s notes]

Lorinda always expects to initiate a conversation. She considers “mothering” to be important, likes to tell a story, values courtesy and is still open to other options.

Pam expects smart conversation where opinions are well-spoken, not “ghetto. She values “eye contact, “no cursing, is goal oriented and accepts her nurturing qualities.

Carlisle reiterated a concern for respect – a mutual respect according to how the other party is confronted. In his conversation with women, he expects the women should be sure of themselves. He looks for things in common.

Markus asked a series of questions: “Is the meeting [between two people] random or designated?” “Is the conversation formal or social?” He is looking for shades of individuality with educational benefits. He prefers an ability to communicate effectively.

Drani asks “Is the person judgmental?” “Does this person have an opinion and is self-assertive?” “Is the person cultured, able to relate to a variety of people without fear and not afraid to express opinions.

Lorinda observed that not everyone has the same set of values. What is “respect” to one may not be “respect to another.

Gena brings up the book, “They Just Don’t Understand,” by Deborah Tannen. Both men and women want the same things but may not express themselves in the same ways.

Mostly all the expectations were gender neutral. We are alike in a lot of ways. Everyone agreed that we all want the same things, but go about getting them in different ways.

Lorinda noticed that the men were more specific than the women in their comments. The women appear to be more tolerant than the men. Gena felt that women are more picky. Men seem to believe that respect is automatic. Men want the same things from their male friends as they do from their female friends.

Messages are interpreted differently. Drani noted that men interpret and misinterpret women’s and men’s messages differently,

But why? Is it how the message is delivered? Drani says that women are not specific. Men say, “I think.” Women say, “I feel.”

Lorinda asked if the group thought that the emotions of women have to do with differences that are not obvious? Carlisle said these have to do with culture and society.

Lorinda asked “Do the ladies feel deprived of anything because of gender?” Gena responded that many opportunities are gender-based which create “glass ceilings” in a male-dominated world.

Meggy interjected “I have no limitations on my part. I’m going to take on the world!” Pam felt that women are disrespected because of their limited compensation combined with racial issues.

Gena responded that Meggy does not feel that she has any limitations because of her age. Markus agreed that women are deprived of job opportunities as well as socially deprived.

Carl isle observed a gender bias in society in general. Drani commented on the work opportunities for women and the cultural differences in women’s roles in the family. Carlisle noted that society makes demands and controls certain behavior patterns while society reinforces those patterns.

Carlisle urged that men and women have to look for common ground. We must filter out cultural differences and social demands that diminish ourselves.

The Lorinda questions: What did we learn?

• Males and females desire the same things when it comes to relationships.
• Men send mixed messages and do not express themselves clearly.
• Women have more expectations than men.
• “I do not like to deal with emotions that are more like males.”
• We can still find a common ground.
• Women are more emotional than men.
• Some things women are not ready to give up for equal rights.

Hal’s observation on the notes he has just reconstructed: The discussion was quite riveting. So many issues were brought up and not challenged. So many opinions were stated superficially and not explored in some depth. In short, we have much more to do in exploring “Talking to Women.”

----

Let’s not forget Carlisle Yearwood’s IDEA several weeks ago. He suggested we develop a 3x4 index card with basic Touro information on it. We’ll talk more about this in the future.

As always, these sessions are open for everyone to attend. Bring a friend and join the excitement. See you next time.

Hal Wicke