Sunday, July 26, 2009

The Touro Communication Club Notes #82
Tourocommunicationclub.blogspot.com

Communication Quote of the Week

One who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; one who does not ask a question remains a fool forever.
Chinese Proverb


Congratulations to James Millner
who has been accepted into the Touro Graduate School of Education, specializing in Middle School students. James was recognized for his academic and personal achievements at the June SGS Graduation ceremonies at Lincoln Center

This Week: Wednesday, July 15, 2009
2 pm - Room 223 – Midtown
“Ethics and the Golden Rule”
Professor Jose Dunker suggested a version of this topic.
Ethics is like the weather. Everyone complains about it, but no one does anything about it. (Thank you, Mark Twain). With the arrest of 44 people in New Jersey last week on corruption charges, ethics was once again in the news. What do ethics mean in our private dealings with other people? What standards should we expect from ourselves? From others? From public servants? A volatile topic.

A Note to Communicators:
Strategy: To deconstruct an event to identify its communication elements.
Tactic: To discover how the context of an event impacts on the event and affects it.

Race, President Obama and Communication
This week in response to a reporter’s question, President Obama injected himself into a police action in Cambridge in connection with his friend, Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. The police had been called to investigate an alleged break-in. Apparently Professor Gates and his cabdriver were trying to open the front door of his home. Words were exchanged and Professor Gates was led away in handcuffs, charged with disorderly conduct, later dropped.

I would like to deconstruct this communication situation – with the limited information I have. First, I have tried to describe the incident as neutrally as possible in order to identify the structure which has communication elements in it. . In situations like this, context impacts immediately on the communication. History, real or perceived, operates as a paramount factor.
Here are some of the issues implicit in the situation:
·
Race has a long, tragic and volatile history in America.
·
The police, usually white, have had a long and sometimes violent history with African-Americans and Latinos in America. Their reputation precedes their arrival, particularly for many minorities.
·
Despite progress in improving racial relations in America (Obama’s election, Judge Sonia Soto mayor’s nomination to the Supreme Course, several black governors, mayors and corporate CEOs and many other minority figures elected and appointed to posts), there remains a tension between blacks and whites which can ignite instantly when certain elements are in play.

· Non-verbal behavior, intentional or unintentional, often sets up the tension.
·
Words then become critical factors in escalating or reducing the tension.
·
With tinder as volatile as this context, once the match has been lit, a situation can quickly get out of hand.
·
President Obama and Professor Gates are black; the arresting police officer is white.
In a worse case scenario, Malcolm Gladwell’s best seller, Blink, does an autopsy on similar
factors that affected the tragic 1999Amadou Dialo killing.

Now, let us focus on the context of President Obama’s comments on the situation.
·
Obama is a friend of Gates.
·
At a news conference on health care, a reporter asks Obama what his reaction is to the Gates incident.

Here Obama makes his first mistake.
·
Obama gives his opinion of the situation, admitting that he does not know the full story, yet comments that the police acted “stupidly.”
·
The President of the United States has made a judgment about a situation involving a friend of his about which he is not fully informed.

The importance of any comment by the POTUS (Secret Service jargon for the President of the United States) is automatically magnified a thousand-fold compared to a similar comment by any aide or ordinary citizen.
·

Bill Kristol, a conservative commentator on Fox News, observed that the situation was about "class,” not race. He said he did not think that Obama would have commented on the situation at all if the presumed burglar were not Gates a friend of Obama’s.

Now that POTUS has opened his mouth, any attempt to ameliorate the volatile situation has
the risk of making it worse. In the next few days, we will see whether Obama can effectively
“damp” down the furor because it is politically distracting to his agenda. He offered to bring
both parties together for a beer in the White House.

A similar situation with Obama occurred recently on the Jay Leno Tonight show. Leno asked
Obama if he was using the White House bowling alley. In an unfortunate attempt at humor,
POTUS responded that his level of bowling skill would allow him to compete in the Special
Olympics. The uproar that followed took a week to calm down.

In these two incidents, Obama seems to be coming down with his own version of foot-in-mouth
disease that has enhanced Vice-President Joe Biden’s reputation for verbal gaffes. It remains
to be seen whether Obama can retrieve and maintain his Reaganesque “Teflon” reputation.

A more Presidential and certainly safe choice for Obama to make was to say some vague
statement as, “Professor Gates is a friend of mind. I am not completely aware of all the facts of
the situation. So, therefore, I am not able to comment on the situation.”

With examples like this, it is no wonder that public figures are vague and general in their public
utterances. Under the 24/7 media glare, enormous political capital and reputations are at
stake. One casual, off-the-cut or misspoken statement can create an instant uproar or derail a
political situation.

For a different model, President Obama can look to the instinct, legal training and specific
rehearsal that conditioned Judge Sotomayor to become virtually robotic in her Senate
confirmation hearings. To make a casual comment is to shoot yourself in the foot.

Now reverse the situation. If public figures are conditioned to speak in vague and often
glittering generalities, how do ordinary mortals obtain important opinions and facts from their leaders? By using all the tools of critical thinking:

· Direct questions, sharp questions, rephrased questions.

Listen for what is missing.

Listen for contradictions.
·
Listen for exaggerations and hyperbolic language.
·
Compare one opinion with another fact or opinion.
·
And then question, question, question.

Since most of our communication is oral (40,000 words spoken to every one that is written),
we need to realize and internalize how importance our oral discourse is and how much can
be to healing or exacerbating a situation.

UPCOMING CONVERSATIONS:
August 5 – “Disagreeing Without Being Disagreeable”- Never a day goes by when we don’t disagree with something someone says or does. Now we have two choices: we can choose to remain silent or we can choose to disagree. Maybe we can be clever and become passive-aggressive in our disagreement. We’ll being to explore this volatile topic and develop some productive strategies and tactics.

August 12 “Does Gossip Affect Communication?” Of course it does. But How gossip changes the communication is important for us to explore. Is gossip valid? Do people believe gossip? Why are we fascinated with it? We are inundated daily with gossip – from our family, friends, teachers, politicians – and most of all from celebrities. The media makes a ton of money by recycling all kinds of gossip. We won’t name names, but we’ll look at how and why gossip is so much of our lives.

August 19 – “How do You know You Don’t Understand?” This is a familiar feeling for many of us. Situation: Someone is saying something to you. As this person talks, you slowly realize you don’t understand what he/she is saying. Or: Same situation: You realize you haven’t been listening. Or: Same situation: You disagree with the person. There are dozens of other situations. What do you do in your mind? Then what do you do?

What happened on Wednesday, July 22, 2009?
“The Difficulties of Relationships”
As we were waiting for the session to begin, a certain person related an anecdote which seemed related to the topic for today. He was asked by his wife and daughter to join them at the new Harry Potter movie. Both have told him how much they enjoyed being together with him. He was reluctant to go because he admitted he didn’t like the movies they seemed to enjoy. He pleaded that he had too much work to do. They changed the showing date of the movie, so his schedule could accommodate their wishes to be together as a family. He still was reluctant to go, but was encouraged to join his family. Sadly, we will never know how the situation worked out.

Newcomer Ronald Johnson bolstered the group of students who included Lorinda Moor, Pamela Sheppard, Brian Brown and James Millner. Faculty included Markus Vayandorf, Jason Carvell, Charles Mason, Carlisle Yearwood, Robert Bohr and Hal Wicke.
Markus could not stay but offered his view that all relationships divide into three categories:

Personal

Official

Group-to-Group

The group agreed that we all had a least one difficulty in one of our relationships. The difficulties included
  • Different perceptions
  • Misinterpretations
  • Little patience
  • The delivery of the messages
  • A dislike of perceived sugar-coating of an issue
  • White lies
  • Standing on principle instead of mediating a resolution
  • Conflict of objectives
  • Pride – or an attack on an individual’s pride
  • Perception of impending harm
  • Uncertain body language
  • Guilt
Several people commented that they never got over the pain of the attack or difficulty. They lost a sense of sense, particularly if they were committed to a principle.

Carlisle recalled his experience as a young man in World War II in Barbados when every one was prohibited from eating the dinner meal once a week on Monday to honor of the British Empire. To die for a cause was to display discipline in the face of adversity. He carries this memory today.

Some commented that during these difficulties they began to second-guess themselves. “This is why I doubt myself all the time,” said one person. All were aware that this doubt leads to an inability to function. Several cited personal incidents illustrating these ideas. “I get upset when things are not going well,” said one person.

How one defines one’s self can threaten one’s self. Logic gets overwhelmed by emotions.

Jason offered Isaiah Berlin’s book, “The Proper Study of Man” (1997) and “The Crooked Timber of Humanity (1990), Berlin was a philosopher and historian of ideas.

Someone offered a poem about “arguing and disagreeing with everyone” from the subway advertising series, “Poetry in Motion.”

In describing a plagiarism incident with a student, one faculty member said, “Students are hard headed and don’t listen.” The group jumped on him for his perceived prejudicial statement. Perhaps this was hard-headed, but not all students are hard-headed, the group exclaimed.
Why does this happen? Self-preservation, ego protection. “You are taught in the street to never admit you are wrong,” observed Charles Mason. “It is a survival mechanism.” This led to a discussion about President Obama’s comments on Professor Gates’s experience with the Cambridge police. “You are always wrong with the police,” said one person.
Many disagreements are based on differing culture. You are taught to respect teachers, preachers and police officers. However, there have been so many incidents of police brutality in minority communities that police are looked on with suspicion. More riveting anecdotes were shared by the group.

Hal tried to bring the discussion back to the difficulties between men and women. Among the comments were;
· It’s hard to be honest in relationships.
· Women are not as messed up as men.
· Women bring a different “package” to the table than men, particularly because of their biological responsibility of bearing children.

· Your name is very important. (It carries your identity.)
·
Children of mixed races have special challenges (Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemming; Ruth and Esther in the Old Testament)

There is a double standard for male and female behavior.
·
A men’s fitness magazine advises men to lie in a relationship.
·
The number of male conquests is important to male self-esteem.
·
Young women are affected by the media culture. The popularity of “Video Ho’s.” teaches young women to be sexual objects.

The discussion was going full-force at 4:30 and threatening to exhaust everyone after 2 hours of
very intense exchanges. Hal suggested that we suspend the discussion for today and resume it
in the future with “Difficulties of Relationships."

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

Hal Wicke

Sunday, July 19, 2009

Touro Communication Club Notes #81

Communication Quote of the Week
“Some men see things as they are and say, "Why?" I dream of things that never were and say, ‘Why not?’”
George Bernard Shaw. (This quote is frequently attributed to Robert F. (Bobby) Kennedy, who used it in a speech which his brother, Edward F. (Teddy) Kennedy quoted at RFK's funeral.


This Week: Wednesday, July 15, 2009
2 pm - Room 223 – Midtown
“The Difficulties of Relationships”
The intensity of the discussion on “Talking to Men” generated a further session, This one focusing on the interaction between men and women. It would seem that conflict is a frequent outcome of male and female interaction. We’ll try to explore some of the reasons why this is so.


A Note for Communicators:

“How Poor Questions Muddy the Message”
Strategy: To acquire and polish a repertoire of communication tools.
Tactic: To discover how lazy questions obfuscate your message”
pay attention to our audience before, not after we speak (and write).

The Judge Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court nomination hearings this week provided much fodder for discussion. Although the intent of a Senator’s question might be to obtain information or an opinion, the question can often provide opportunities for a Senator to pontificate his/her position, to prejudice an answer or to muddy/cloud/obfuscate an issue. The process is often very clever.

However, Judge Sotomayor was well-trained and rehearsed. She was a bulldog, responding to prejudicial statements with silence or to leading questions about her philosophy of justice by saying, “I ask how does the law apply to the facts of the case.”

Frequently, the Senators naively thought they could shake her from her position by asking her personal opinion of an issue. Each time – to the point of boring predictability – Judge Sotomayor responded with the identical statement, “My personal opinion is not relevant in my role as a judge. I seek to discover how the law applies to the facts of the case.”

Republican Senator Lindsay Graham tipped his hand by prefacing his questions by saying that despite his questioning, she would probably get confirmed. Then he went on to throw potentially inflammatory statements at her, briefly followed by a question. All with that Southern smile of his. These Senatorial Q&A answer periods are full of tactics designed to catch a nominee off guard. Then the Senator will pounce. Gotcha, lady!

Newly “hatched” Democratic Senator Al Franken seemed to be frustrated by the predictability of Judge Sotomayor’s answers. Robotically, he framed each of a half dozen questions in exactly the same way. Dumb. But Franken had only been on the job a week. He’s still a comedian learning a new craft of being a Senator.

In general, I thought the questioning was not very skillful. The Democrats gave her a pass by asking softball background questions as well as questions which allowed her to anticipate the negative questions by the Republicans, particularly on the issues of “empathy” and the oft-repeated controversial “wise Latina” quote. Here is what Sotomayor said in a 2001 speech,

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

The Republicans were amazingly uncreative in their questions. Republican Senator Jeffrey Beauregard Sessions III (who voted against her on her two previous nominations) hammered away at her non-judiciary statements, choosing to omit any reference to her 17-year judicial record.

Questions were preceded by lengthy statements, as is often the Senate’s rhetorical practice.

Observations: Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s new autobiography highlights one communication practice worth adding to our arsenal of communication tools. Rumsfeld say s he always looks for what is missing in any communication, oral or written. He notes that what is left out often changes the impact of what is said.

I first became aware of these tactics during the 1973 Watergate hearings. Very acute listening was necessary in every exchange.. In a 1976 New York Times op-ed column by William Safire (a former Nixon speech writer), entitled “Truth in Lying,” Safire pointed out that the poor questioning of Attorney General John Mitchell allowed him to tell “all the truth and nothing but the truth” and yet lie about certain unasked facts about the Watergate break-in. Whether intentional or not, the vague questions became a huge fishing net with big holes which was cast over a school of slippery Watergate fish allowing them to easily swim through the net.

What’s the lesson? By now, the answer sounds like a bromide – listen carefully. Compare the answers to what you know to be the facts. Look for contradictions. Look for omissions.

Notice the patterns of the answers. What topics are emphasized? What topics are avoided? What kind of logic is being used? When you discover a pattern, ask a question about the disparity.

The downside of asking questions often is that you become a pain in the neck. The target of the question may be someone who is either hiding something or is unable to respond adequately to direct questioning. You’ve got to be careful.

Questions can make people defensive. People who speak their version of “word salad” are particularly vulnerable. You become the Spanish Inquisitor. The “victim” feels accused and is presumed to be wrong.

The goal of questioning – especially outside the courtroom – is to provide information and to clarify misunderstandings. At its most effective, questions need to be selectively used, elegantly phrased while acknowledging the legitimacy of the other person and position.

The Q&A exchange, always challenging, can be elevated to a high art. In a nation which does not value or understand critical thinking, emotions dominate too often and reason disappears.

UPCOMING CONVERSATIONS:
July 29 – “Ethics: Integrity and the Golden Rule” Professor Jose Dunker suggested a version of this topic. “The Alabama Project” was his brainchild, an outgrowth of his class on Civil rights. In April, the Club hosted a slide show history of Touro’s acclaimed student trip to the South, retracing the steps of the Civil Rights leaders.

August 5 - Disagreeing Without Being Disagreeable”- Never a day goes by when we don’t disagree with something someone says or does. Now we have two choices: we can choose to remain silent or we can choose to disagree. Maybe we can be clever and become passive-aggressive in our disagreement. We’ll being to explore this volatile topic and develop some productive strategies and tactics.

August 12 – “Does Gossip Affect Communication?” Of course it does. But How gossip changes the communication is important for us to explore. Is gossip valid? Do people believe gossip? Why are we fascinated with it? We are inundated daily with gossip – from our family, friends, teachers, politicians – and most of all from celebrities. The media makes a ton of money by recycling all kinds of gossip. We won’t name names, but we’ll look at how and why gossip is so much of our lives.

What happened on Wednesday, July15, 2009? “Anatomy of Freedom” II
Newcomer Robert Bohr of the Mathematics department joined the faculty contingent which included David Nussbaum, Markus Vayndorf, Charles Mason and Hal Wicke. Student regulars included Pamela Shepard, Drani Gabu, Lorinda Moore and James Millner. Drani will read about the club activities in the next couple of weeks because he will be revisiting friends in Oregon. Send us back some Communication tidbits.

Following his opening question from the first session on “Anatomy of Freedom,” Hal asked again, “Do you believe you are free?” The final count was tied:
Yes - 3
No – 3

Some chafed at being limited to a yes/no option. Hal explained he was trying to get a quick snapshot of how people felt about freedom. Then several expanded on their definition of freedom.

  • “Freedom has different levels,”
  • “The more you know who you are, the more freedom you have.”
  • One person felt she was “free” 40% of the time. Another said she was “free” 80% of the time.
  • “We have relative freedom as an individual.”
  • “I am like a ghost – blank. Every one around me seems to be more important than I am.”
  • “Let go and let God.”
  • An external event makes you more conscious of your freedom
  • “Freedom begins when you become aware of someone beyond yourself. That began when I had my son.”
  • “People who have more titles and degrees are freer.” “Titles don’t guarantee freedom.”
  • “I realized about age 33 that I was being defined by others, not by myself.”
  • “I felt like I was in jail.”
  • “I felt stupid and afraid to be humiliated.”
  • “I felt angry, but afraid I would be penalized if I spoke out.”
Hal noticed that, like the previous “Talking to Men” session, the two women were more forthcoming in their personal disclosures than the men present. The men were mostly silent.

Drani shared his experience of living through two wars in Sudan. “I am asking questions loudly in my head.”

Charles spoke about the impact of the Alabama trip. “If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.” We have to fight for information.

Robert commented that a “Great Man” was needed to persuade President Roosevelt that the Manhattan Project’s atomic bomb was worth developing.

At this point, Hal stopped taking his usual disjointed notes. The energy and interest of the group focused on a practical situation which has tested the individual’s definition of freedom. Exploring the details were more riveting than relating the details to the individual’s concept of freedom. Emotion seemed to dominate.

As the discussion continued, Hal reflected to himself that the group needs to explore developing the mental habit of examining any issue in its details while at the same time reflecting how the details are part of larger concepts. So often we get caught up in the details of life without being aware of putting them in a context.

American author, William Faulkner, commented, “The real test of a first rate mind is to keep two conflicting ideas in mind at the same time and still function.”

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

Hal Wicke

Saturday, July 11, 2009

Touro Communication Club Notes #80
Tourocommunicationclub.blogspot.com

Communication Quote of the Week
“Listen carefully to the patients and they’ll tell you the diagnosis.”
Medical maxim


This Week: Wednesday, July 15, 2009
2 pm - Room 223 – Midtown
Anatomy of Freedom” II
As expected, the discussion of 6/24 merely scratched the surface. Freedom is an endlessly complex topic. This time, we could go a number of ways: political freedom, social freedom, religious freedom, etc. What are the consequences of freedom? Is it given or taken? Many more questions.


News note:

One of the original club members, Brian Brown, will be leaving Touro in a few weeks to enroll as a junior in St. Edward's University in Austin, Texas, where his Brooklyn family now lives. The college thought highly enough of Brian’s record to award him a $5000 scholarship. We say a warm farewell to Brian and wish him well in his new adventures. He can always keep up with what we are doing on our blog and post a comment.


A Note for Communicators:

“It’s Not What You Say, It’s What People Hear”
Strategy: To re conceive our communication ideas and strategies to make them more effective.
Tactic: To pay attention to our audience before, not after we speak (and write).

Dr. Frank Luntz is considered a conservative Republican pollster. Some liberals would argue that no Republican or conservative has any idea worth anything. Yet Luntz has many ideas – particularly about language – which affect our message. He was one of the architects for the highly successful 1994 Republican Contract with America.

His very accessible 2007 book, “Words That Work: It’s Not What You Say; It’s What People Hear,” was a New York Times best seller.

Luntz writes, “You can have the best message in the world, but the person on the receiving end will always understand it through the prism of his or her emotions, preconceptions, prejudice and preexisting beliefs.” To that list of filters, I would add gender, race and ethnicity and personal history.

He continues, “It’s not enough to be correct or reasonable or even brilliant. The key to successful communication is to take the imaginative leap of stuff yourself right into your listener’s shoes to know what they are thinking and feeling in the deepest recesses of their mind and how. How that person perceives what you say is even more real, at least in a practical sense than how you perceive yourself.”

That is pertinent advice for all who communicate – which is everyone – but especially for teachers and professors who sometimes operate as if students absorb 100% of the brilliant words and ideas that the instructor declares.

Communicators call this tactic “audience adaptation.” All public speaking texts talk about making a detailed audience analysis to understand how each group will receive your message.

There is the story of Robert Kennedy making his first presentation before the U.S. Supreme Court. Although a lawyer, he had never argued a case before any judge or jury. Part of his preparation was to examine the background and decisions of every one of the nine Justices as he crafted his 30-minute presentation. He had to integrate nine separate speeches into integrated whole.

In his 1966 book, “The Effective Executive,” Peter Drucker writes that more than 60 percent of all problems in companies and organizations can be attributed to poor communication. For whatever the reason, the CEO and upper management talk to themselves and arrive at a decision without knowing, understanding or accepting that the people who will execute that decision need to be brought along.

In every organization, everyone is a stakeholder. In a classroom, the students are the primary stakeholders in the teaching learning process. In business, the customers are vital stakeholders because if they don’t buy the product or service, there will be no business.

For most people, communication is invisible. Communication is the atmosphere. We don't notice good communication because it becomes a pervasive positive atmosphere. We do notice poor communication because the atmosphere is negative and nothing seems to work well

As communicators, we know how challenging our invisible task is. There are so many elements that impact simultaneously on communication that we often forget one or more of them. Imagine someone who doesn’t understand communication, someone who lives in a bubble, someone who believes he/she is the center of the world. Omigod!

UPCOMING CONVERSATIONS:
July 22 – “The Difficulty of Relationships” The intensity of the discussion on “Talking to Men” generated a further session, this one focusing on the interaction between men and women. It would seem that conflict is a frequent outcome of male and female interaction. We’ll try to explore some of the reasons why this is so.

July 29 – “Ethics: Integrity and the Golden Rule” Professor Jose Dunker suggested a version of this topic. “The Alabama Project” was his brainchild, an outgrowth of his class on Civil rights. In April, the Club hosted a slide show history of Touro’s acclaimed student trip to the South, retracing the steps of the Civil Rights leaders.

August 5 - Disagreeing Without Being Disagreeable”- Never a day goes by when we don’t disagree with something someone says or does. Now we have two choices: we can choose to remain silent or we can choose to disagree. Maybe we can be clever and become passive-aggressive in our disagreement. We’ll being to explore this volatile topic and develop some productive strategies and tactics.

What happened on Wednesday, July8, 2009?
“Stand-up Comedy”


We owe this topic to recent Geovanny Leon’s impromptu speech. His performance led to a discussion of what is funny and how to make people laugh. The joke and its well-honed implicit structure will induce a laugh if told well. In the open-ended discussion, we’ll explore a series of questions about humor and comedy. Just in case it gets boring, bring your favorite joke.

The mood of the group was expectant – they wanted to laugh. But Hal changed the mood with his infernal definitions and questions.
  • What is funny? What do we laugh at?
  • Why do we laugh?
But the group slogged on valiantly. Newcomer, Dean Donne Kampel, was not shy about joining in the opinion exchange. The usual suspects were there: Drani Gabu, Lorinda Moore, Markus Vayndorf, James Millner, Carlisle Yearwood, Charles Mason and Brian Brown. Hal Wicke guided the discussion.

Several felt that being silly and absurd was funny. Physical humor was always funny. We laugh because we don’t think the situation will happen in real life.

Dean Kampel suggested that it would be funny to have a reality show about college life. The 1978 film, “Animal House” was a humorous portrayal of life in a fraternity house. Dean Kampel recalled John Belushi taking cottage cheese in his mouth and asking, “What am I?” A zit, he said, as his spewed cottage cheese all over. The group was divided as to whether the situation was funny.

A variety of thoughts
  • We can comment about anything in everyday life using humor.
  • A joke was told that fell flat because nobody understood the delivery.
  • Word play is a fascination for one person, particularly puns. “The bigger the groan the more successful they are.
  • Sarah Palin and Tina Fey were objects of interest.
  • Humor comes from a discrepancy between words and perceived reality.
  • Frequent objects of ridicule – leaders, family elders, teachers and other authorities
  • George Bush and David Letterman’s segment on “Famous Presidential Words”
  • We laugh at our leaders because they are supposed to be perfect.
Lorinda said that she was taught growing up to have respect for leadership. Her view was tossed around by the group. Most agreed that we should respect the office, but not necessarily the person in the office.

In America, because we don’t have a tradition of hierarchy, everyone is fair game for ridicule. Politicians are always fodder for slapstick comedy. Look at the New York Legislature in Albany or any number of governors: (Patterson, Spitzer, Sanford, Blogojevich), or members of Congress – (Ensign, Craig, Foley, Burris). The newest Senator Al Franken, a professional comedian, vows to do his best NOT to be funny.

Edward Kennedy is no longer an object of ridicule because of Chappaquiddick because he has brain cancer.

The discussion focused on professional comedians – Chris Rock (beloved by group), Rodney Dangerfield, Henny Youngman (“Here, take my wife, please.”), the Cable Guy, Red Skeleton, Larry David, Woody Allen, Carrot Top. Conan O’Brian, Jay Leno, Don Rickles and Jackie Mason are equal opportunity insult comedians.

All comedians play to their audiences.

Then there’s the derisive laugh – making fun of people who are less fortunate than we are and people who are different than we are. Here context is very important – in once situation, something may be funny; in another, it isn’t.

What about being politically correct? Has it killed humor? Ethnic jokes, the fodder of old time vaudeville and parapalegic jokes, are no longer acceptable to most people.

In an unexpected literary turn, Brian mentioned that the hero, Howard Roark, in Ayn Rand‘s novel “Atlas Shrugged” was similar to Woody Allen in his independent spirit. Carlisle mentioned the novels of Donald Barthelme focused on developing your own style. Architect Frank Lloyd Wright had a similar vision in his Arts and Crafts homes.

The jokes continued with Drani telling two and Brian telling one to mixed reaction. Then Howard Stern became the central topic of whether he was funny.

Then somehow we got onto Madonna and her adoption of a young Mali boy– totally unrelated to humor. Opinions flew around as to whether her motives were to gain publicity by adopting the boy, then Oprah’s school for girls in Africa and Angelina Jolie’s multiple adoptions. One person shared a story about giving money to a person without any strings.

The discussion moved toward making choices in charity. “We cannot feel we can solve all social issues,” said one person.

Time had run out. Although a meandering session, the topics seemed to maintain attention. We bid Brian a warm farewell as he leaves Touro to enroll in a Texas university, having won a $5000 scholarship.

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

Hal Wicke

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

Touro Communication Club Notes #79
Tourocommunicationclub.blogspot.com

Communication Quote of the Week
Diplomacy is the art of letting someone else have your way.”
Daniele Vare was an Italian diplomat and expatriate who lived in China in the 1920s and 1930s. He wrote a number of novels, plays, and nonfiction books in both Italian and English.

This Week: Wednesday, July 8, 2009
2 pm - Room 223 – Midtown
“Stand-up Comedy”
We owe this topic to recent Geovanny Leon’s impromptu speech. His performance led to a discussion of what is funny and how to make people laugh. The joke and its well-honed implicit structure will induce a laugh if told well. In the open-ended discussion, we’ll explore a series of questions about humor and comedy. Just in case it gets boring, bring your favorite joke.

A Note for Communicators:

Object Lessons in Managing a Country
Strategy: to find stories in the news from which we can learn how to communicate more effectively.
Tactic: To current events to discover personal lessons.

Perhaps the most challenging aspect of being awake in your life is to be aware of what’s happening in the world while managing your own personal affairs. It’s akin to rubbing your stomach and patting your head. Confusing and difficult, yet necessary if you want to learn how to juggle.

The overriding saga that we can learn from is what is happening in Iran and its election. Here are the facts as understood by an interested observer.

For those who have not been awake in the last several weeks, Iran had an election for president on June 12th. The pre-election mood of the country was upbeat. Several candidates were competing, including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the incumbent. There was great excitement on the day of the election as the outpouring of Iranian citizens cast their votes in their first important election in four years.

Excitement turned to dismay and then to anger when Ahmadinejad was reelected “overwhelmingly” by a 63% margin in a ballot count that took one day. Many Iranians couldn’t believe that their candidate, Mir Hussein Moussavi, was defeated.

Demonstrations against the outcome were at first peaceful, but turned violent and deadly when the supreme leader Ayatolloah Ali Khamenei forbade all demonstrations and media coverage. (The official name of Iran is The Islamic Republic of Iran, a theocracy ruled by Islamic law or Shariah and headed by a Grand Ayatollah who presides over the management of the country. His word is inviolate.)

Despite the media prohibition, cell phone cameras recorded the shocking events for world consumption and tweets sent factual blurbs to the media, a compelling demonstration that freedom of information burns eternal. In fact, Twitter suddenly became an international icon when President Obama asked the company to delay a maintenance overall until well after the protests

Iran’s Revolutionary Council, analogous to the U.S. Supreme Court and composed entirely of clerics, confirmed the validity of the election. The energy of the demonstrations rose and then fell to silence under the governmental repression. Iran’s media was shut down. Tweets kept coming.

Late last week, the Khameni government began calling Moussavi and the protesters traitors to and criminals. Within hours, several protesters were arrested and quickly had “confessed” election misdeeds.

Then yesterday (Saturday, July 3, 2009), in a surprise turn of events, another group of clerics, the Association of Researchers and Teachers of Qum, a holy city southwest of Tehran) publicly disputed the June 12th election and the legitimacy of the newly elected government. This was an historic occasion where one clerical group challenged publicly the position of another. Clearly, the autocratic government is not as unified as they would have Iranian citizens and the world believe.

But, as Yogi Berra used to say, “It ain’t over, til it’s over. And this one is especially messy since Iran is positioning itself as a nuclear power.

These events are happening 10,000 miles away, but they affect each of us directly or indirectly. I always ask myself: “What communication lessons can I learn from this news story?” Here are several thoughts, perhaps obvious and banal.

1. Many of these lessons have parallels to situations in our daily lives.
2. There are always more than two sides to an issue and he who has the marbles rules. (More marbles = more power.)
3. Definitions are important. ”Election” and “Democracy” don’t mean the same thing to different people and certainly in different countries.
4. Since there is often a gap between rhetoric and reality, watch the reality. Don’t get sweet-talked into doing something you’ll regret. Watch the behavior. Does it match the words?
5. What should my behavior be? Here is where clichés becomes real.
·
Always listen and watch. Be aware.
· As President Reagan said, “Trust but verify.”
· I like President Teddy Roosevelt’s axiom better: “Speak softly but carry a big stick.”

6. What’s MY “big stick”?
· My ability to hear accurately.
· My ability to understand precisely.
· My ability to question unclear behavior and language.
· My ability to frame responses in precise, elegant and forceful yet diplomatic ways.
7. Almost without exception, when an authoritarian leader gets challenged, the predictable behavior is to quash the opposition. When the dictator is the only stakeholder in the country or organization. other stake holders are disregarded or eliminated.

I’m sure there are more lessons to be extracted from the Iranian events, but these are a start.

UPCOMING CONVER SATIONS:
July 15 – “Anatomy of Freedom” II – As expected, the discussion of 6/24 merely scratched the surface. This time, we could go a number of ways: political freedom, social freedom, religious freedom, etc. What are the consequences of freedom? Is it given or taken? Many more questions.

July 22 – “The Difficulty of Relationships” The intensity of the discussion on “Talking to Men” generated a further session, this one focusing on the interaction between men and women. It would seem that conflict is a frequent outcome of male and female interaction. We’ll try to explore some of the reasons why this is so.

July 29 – “Ethics: Integrity and the Golden Rule” Professor Jose Dunker suggested a version of this topic. “The Alabama Project” was his brainchild, an outgrowth of his class on Civil rights. The Club hosted a slide show history of Touro’s acclaimed student trip to the South, retracing the steps of the Civil Rights leaders.

What happened on Wednesday, July 1, 2009? “Talking to Men”
An intense and candid group of Communication regulars, eight men and two women (or three students and seven faculty), began quietly enough and then became deeply involved in the topic. Among the students were Lorinda Moore, Drani Gabu and James Millner. The faculty included David Nussbaum, Charles Mason, Carlisle Yearwood, Jose Dunker, Gena Bardwell, Markus Vayndorf and Hal Wicke

Hal asked the men to list their expectations in all their relationships with men and women. Their expectations included

Coherence Comprehended (understood)
Relevance Revered/Admired
Mutual respect Tact
Intelligibility Well informed
Honesty Aggressive
Openness
Importance

One quoted a Touro administrator as saying, “The problem in most relationships is that everyone brings too much baggage to the relationship.”

The question was asked, “What will we talk about after sex?” No one had an immediate response. (An aside: Eric Berne, the founder of Transactional Analysis, who asked, “What do you say after you say ‘hello’?.)

Several people shared candidly aspects of their personal stories of their difficulties in relationships and in classroom situations.

In response to these familiar statements, “All men are dogs; all women are bitches,” several commented on the stereotypical nature of these words that stopped communication and generated angry responses. One person commented that there are many police officers – some good, some bad – but the stereotype of a cop is unusual negative, regardless of what he/she has/has not done.

One woman suggested that women are all pieces, some of which are not connected. Hal offered the conclusion of “The Female Brain,” by LuAnn Brizendine who characterizes “women’s brains as eight-lane highways whereas men’s brains are single, solitary country roads.”

Hal asked, “Why is gender communication so difficult?” Several men commented that they usually approached relationships rationally where in the face of hyper emotionality, they retreat from the emotions. One man commented that he used rational techniques because he was afraid of what would happen if he were to let his emotions go.

Markus commented that if you subdue your passions, you will improve yourself. Carlisle recalled two statements,

  • “Where there is laughter, there is love.”
  • “When you see something boiling, don’t put a cover on it. Don’t let the steam get too high.”
David recalled George Eliot’s description of “a hand pulled away” in her 1874 novel “Middlemarch” as an early sign of a relationship beginning to decay.

At this point, both Lorinda and Gena, the only two women in the room, began sharing their heartfelt responses to their difficulties in communicating with men. Each, in turn and in her way, delivered a mesmerizing distillation of her impassioned experience, almost a plea to all men to hear and understand their experience. The six in the room were silent, each lost in their reactions and not yet able to verbalize a respectful response.

In its spoken and silent eloquence, the moment was of transcendent operatic stature.
No one was able to continue the discussion as constituted, but all were willing to reconstitute a future discussion under a more general title, “The Difficulties of Relationships.”
Other topics for future Communication Club sessions included:

  • College expectations for students
  • Is College Preparing us for the Workplace?
  • Education vs. Training
  • Richard Green’s use of technology in the classroom
  • Ethics:: Integrity. and the Golden Rule
  • The Decision-making Process
All the sessions we have seen to have an intense quality. This one seemed to be particularly personal, candid, gripping and thought-provoking. Clearly, much dialogue must occur in any relationship, especially a serious male/female one.

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

Hal Wicke