Touro Communication Club Notes #81

Tourocommunicationclub.blogspot.com

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