Monday, October 26, 2009

The Touro Communication Club Notes #93 –October 28 2009
Communication Quote of the Week
Robert Louis Stevenson (1850 - 1894), Scottish author, poet and travel writer. He is best known for his novel, Treasure Island, and his novella, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
The Touro Communication Club
2 pm - Wednesday, October 28, 2009 – Room 223
Entitlement
You believe that you are deserving of or entitled to certain privileges. Are you entitled to “respect”? Are you entitled to an A grade in every course? Are you entitled to say, “I am King”? (Sean John’s new men’s fragrance). Does fame make you entitled? Because you are male or female, does that make you entitled? What are the criteria for being “entitled”? George Orwell’s novel, “1984,” described a society where “Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.” Another complex topic that shows up in the words we choose and the behavior we use.
A Note to Communicators:
Silence, Pauses and Hesitancies and what is NOT said
Strategy: To notice the various aspects of communication.
Tactic: To observe gaps in communication when people speak or use non-verbal communication and when they do NOT speak or use non-verbal communication.
Is silence “golden”? The cliché says so. But as R.L. Stevenson notes, silence can be used for nefarious purposes.
Silence is more ambiguous that a word or a gesture. It may mean something. It may not. To a large degree, the meaning of silence is conveyed by context. When does silence occur?
One kind of silence is the lack of response. It happens personally and professionally.
You say “hello” to someone. No response. You leave a phone or email message for someone. No response. Silence also conveys meaning by what is left out, what is omitted.
In a dating or interview situation, you were promised that someone would contact you in a day or so. They don’t.
What goes through your mind?
  • The person forgot.
  • The person is extremely busy and just didn’t get around to getting back to you.
  • The person doesn’t want to contact you.
Your imagination can run wild.
Another kind of silence is not responding or pausing too long in a response.
A third manifestation of silence is changing the topic.
A fourth variation of silence is answering a question with a question. Suddenly, the other person is your therapist.
Still another variation of silence is giving you a non-responsive response. You are talking about one thing and your partner starts talking something else.
Yes, these kinds of silence are rather disconfirming. They don’t feel nice. You feel something’s not right.
However, often the conversation is going too fast for you to notice these nuances of silence. But afterwards, you may have an uncomfortable feeling that you aren’t sure where it came from.
When these phenomena occur often enough, you notice a pattern and are puzzled. You are suspicious. Perhaps, as you listen more closely, you begin to confirm your suspicions. And THEN your imagination runs wild. Paranoia, here we come!
For now, what the next step might be is the subject of another discussion. Or, upon further close listening, you decide your suspicions were unfounded.
Another category of silence is in the text of the conversation – the subjects and words that the person uses.
A person may speak a lot about one topic, but leave out major aspects that would create a total picture. This can present a biased picture of a topic.
Three examples: one from recent history, one from the dark mists of an important bygone era and one from the theatre.
In President Obama’s recent speech to gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals and the transgendered, his words were enthusiastically received. Yet he did not mention same-sex marriage. I’m sure some people noticed his silence since he is on record for defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
“Truth in Lying,” was the headline of a 1976 column of the late William Safire, the long time New York Times Op-Ed columnist, lexicographer and former Nixon speech writer. [He was responsible for Vice President Spiro Agnew’s much quoted “Nattering Nabobs of Negativism.”] In the column, Safire observed closely the behavior of then Attorney General William Mitchell who was being cross-examined for his role in the Watergate break-in. Safire saw that Mitchell was consistently telling the truth when responding to the questions he was asked. The problem was with the questions: none were phrased in a way so that Mitchell would reveal any involvement in Watergate.
In theatre, actors know that a well-placed pause can heighten or change the meaning of a speech. The late English playwright Harold Pinter created silence as a consistent leitmotif in his plays. It was used so often critics call it the “Pinter pause.”
Most of the time we are concerned about everyday “garden variety” silence. Silence is a tool used by ordinary mortals as well as politicians. Noticing the silence requires a level of awareness that most of us don’t have. We just don’t listen as closely as actors and musicians do
Here are some suggestions: Listen with your entire body, especially your eyes. Notice individual behavior. Then notice if there is a recurring pattern. Notice some of the following:
· When does the silence occur?
· How often does silence occur/
· What can silence imply? Here are some possibilities:
o Withholding information or a point of view?
o A desire not to hurt another?
o Uncertainty about what to say/
o Bewilderment as to what is being said?
o Overwhelmed by the speaker?
Realize that a pause and hesitancy are siblings of silence.
Individual awareness always has the potential to be development. If you aren’t always focusing on “ME” as the entire center of your world, you might notice that some people are sending you silent messages.
UPCOMING CONVERSATIONS:
November 4 – “Martial Arts and Communication – a Demonstration” Club member Ronald Johnson is a brown belt instructor in martial arts. After one of our meetings, we talked and he made some clear points about the connection between the principles of martial arts and communication. He and his students will demonstrate a few moves that capture how the two unlikely areas do connect.
November 11 – No meeting – Faculty Development Day
November 18 - “Charles Borkhuis and his Radio Plays” – English faculty member Charles Borkhuis has several creative lives outside of Touro. In addition to his poetry, both his radio and stage plays have received international acclaim. We are going to listen to one of his radio plays and discover how he does what he does.
November 25 – “SPAR Debate We need to return to practicing our Communication skills. This is another exercise to train your ability to think on your feet. You are given a topic – let’s say, “Honesty is the best policy.” You and a partner flip a coin for who is going to agree with the statement and who is going to disagree. You have a brief period to prepare, and then you argue you side. You will question your opponent and then restate your position. The audience will vote on who gave the best argument. They cannot take sides. To keep things lively, we have many other topics.
What about one of these topics?
“How Do You Fire Someone?”
“Thinking”
“Rap and Hip Hop – What’s the Message?"
“Rodney King: ‘Why Can’t We Get Along?”
“Asking Questions in Class”
“Cold Calling in Sales”
“Meaning”
“The Seven Heavenly Virtues”
“Why Does History Repeat Itself?”
“Repetition”
And dozens of others!
What happened on Wednesday, October 7, 2009? “The Seven Deadly Sins”
For the record: the seven deadly sins are lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride.
Some people were salivating in anticipation of this week’s topic. Some eighteen people appeared during the 3-hour discussion, although the group averaged about ten or so at any one time.
The newcomers included: Rose Dubreuil, Aaron McBride, Latima Foskey and Althea Ferguson. Familiar faces included Damian Forbes, Christopher Couch, Richard Green, Erica Bell, Pamela Sheppard, Drani Gabu, Donne Kampel, Anna Indelicato, Charles Mason, Lorinda Moore, Rene Vasquez, Ronald, Johnson, Robert Bohrand Hal Wicke
As the standard opener, Hal ask for a definition, “What is a sin?” Most of responses indicated that people thought “sin” was something they associated with a religious context.
· Something that you aren’t supposed to do
· God doesn’t want you to sin, but you still do it.
· Something that is morally against religion.
· Sin is blasphemy – like using God’s name in vain.
· Going against a moral code.
· The opposite of the Golden Rule.
· Sin separates us from God if we believe we are made in the image of God.
· We’re not a team player.
· “I don’t believe in sin.”
· You do it to yourself.
· It is a selfish view of life.
· It’s like putting you hand on a hot stove and get burned
· “Nothing is a sin.”
· Cheating yourself out of doing something
· You take a change when you do something; it might be wrong.
· Everybody does these things.
· It’s part of human nature.
Charles Mason mentioned the 1995 movie “Seven” with Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt as cops and. Kevin Spacey as the serial killer obsessed with the seven deadly sins.
· We are so concerned about ourselves that we aren’t concerned about the wars and disease throughout the world.
· We have a choice – control ourselves or help others.
· I am in charge of me.
· Sin is going to hurtful to you or others.
· “The Bible says ‘Everything in moderation.’”
Do we relate to each of the sins? Most related a little bit to each of the seven deadly sins.
· “I don’t see that it matters. So what if people behave like this?”
· “Try to move narcissism toward altruism.”
· “If we don’t have any of these ‘sins’ then we are perfectionists in the extreme.”
· The Roman Catholic Church uses them to control behavior.
· So many things have been done in the name of religion – slavery, the Crusades
· Civil law gives order to a country.
· Aren’t atheists civil?
· Sin sounds like religion.
· Anything in excess is a sin.
· Some people see the Bible as an historical document; others as the basis for a belief system.
Richard Green quoted Rabbi Hillel’s famous statement:
If I am not for myself, who will be for me?
If I am not for others, what am I?
And if not now, when?
Rabbi Hillel was an influential Jewish scholar & theologian (30 BCE[BC] - 9 CE[AD])
· Sin is a loaded word.
· Everyone is right.
· What about “original sin”?
Lorinda suggested that we should remove the religious context from the “Seven Deadly Sins” and call them the “Seven Deadly Taboos’ or the “Seven Deadly Behaviors.” All agreed that the seven terms were extremes of human behavior and, by taking away the religious context; we can the traits accessible to everyone.
The discussion changed direction a focused on the excesses of rap music and hip hop. The comments flew back and forth. The topic changed almost every time someone spoke.
· You need to be greedy and prideful to be successful in the music business.
· Capitalism = greed
· If you’ve got it, flaunt it.
Much time was spent on Oprah Winfrey and Bill Gates and examples of capitalistic excess.
There was a continuing argument between those who felt that wealthy people earned too much money (greed) and the nature of free-market capitalism to make as much money as you can.
The classroom was compared to the marketplace. One person said “Not everyone can get an A. but in the marketplace everyone can get wealthy.” We were off and running again everyone was full of lively disagreement. The structure of a class was horizontal. So is capitalism. You can always get an A and open a business with your hard work. But the structure of a business is pyramidical. You work within someone else’s rules to succeed.
The discussion went back to rap and hip hop and who was a better artist than another.
Hal asked the remaining group, “Why do you get so excited about rap and hip hop?” It’s our culture.’ “We care about these artists and what they do?
Then the discussion focused on the dress of the artists and how baggy pants are a big issue for some people. People have forgotten the roots of bad-fitting and worn out clothes. It’s now fashionable to be poorly dressed. One store calls it “Shabby Chic” and charges top dollar for ripped jeans.
Some still argued for a dress code that excluded baggy pants and baseball caps. Dave Chapelle, the comedian, talks about having to be “bi-lingual,” speaking two languages and changing the language (“Homey”) when he is in one situation and talking another (“Office Speak”) when he’s in another.
When Hal stopped the spirited discussion at 5 pm, everyone who remained was still excited about rap and hip hop.
Hal promised that we will have separate discussions on capitalism and rap and hip hop in the future.
We always have a great time exploring these issues. So often our daily life never focuses on these Communication issues. If you have something you want us to discuss please let us know and we’ll add it to the list.
Next time bring a friend. The Communication Club is always an open discussion, limited only by time. Everyone gets a chance to speak. All opinions are welcome. Here is an opportunity for students to challenge professors’ views outside the class without any homework or assignments. You just have to show up and listen and talk if you want.

Hal Wicke

Sunday, October 18, 2009

The Touro Communication Club Notes #92 –October14, 2009
Two Communication Quotes of the Week
I would rather try to persuade a man to go along, because once I have persuaded him, he will stick. If I scare him, he will stay just as long as he is scared, and then he is gone.
Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890-1969) was thirty-fourth president (1953-1960). Previously, “Ike” was the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe during World War II
The real persuaders are our appetites, our fears and above all our vanity. The skillful propagandist stirs and coaches these internal persuaders
Eric Hoffer (1902-1983), often called the longshoreman philosopher, wrote “The True Believer” in 1951. He was awarded the American Medal of Freedom by President Ronald Reagan shortly before his death.
The Touro Communication Club
2 pm - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 – Room 223
“The Seven Deadly Sins”-
Originating with the Greeks and codified by the Catholic Church in the Dark Ages, these seven human behaviors are thought to be central to our difficulties in the world. Unfortunately, today we often take these behaviors as the norm. We’ll explore as many as time allows. The seven include: lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride.
Another view:
Communication instructor Diana Thompson responded to colleague Gena Bardwell’s recent Communication Quote with a parallel statement taught her by Diana’s mother:
"He who knows, and who knows he knows, should teach.
“He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool.  Shun him."
Thanks, Diana – and Gena.
A Note to Communicators:
Persuasion – the invisible tool to change people’s minds (Part I)
Strategy: Having decided you want something, develop the most effective way to get it, short of stealing, killing or doing something dishonest or ethical.
Tactic: To experiment with various ways of persuasion until we discover one that works both in the short and long term without damaging the object of persuasion.
Whether we are aware of it or not, we use persuasion almost all the time. Our first target is ourselves. Must we get out of bed? Must we go to work/school? Must we pay attention to our loved ones? Which is more important: our professional goals or our family?
We move from persuading ourselves to persuading others. You should take this action. You should buy this product. You should believe this way. You should vote for this candidate. You should get out of this war.
When we attempt to persuade, we need to be aware of our audience. When we try to persuade ourselves, our audience is our self. We have to persuade our self. But our self is often most elusive.
· Do we know who we are?
· What we stand for?
The battle inside our minds is constant in the choices we make.
In persuading our self, we are always having the fight between our emotions and our reason.
· I am hungry, therefore I want to eat. But I can’t eat because I am too fat.
· I’m tired; therefore I want to go to sleep. But I can’t because I have work to do.
· I want that grade/promotion, but I don’t want to do any extra work to get it.
Who wins? Usually our emotions. Certainly, emotions will always trump reason in a crisis.
Unless you are like the firefighter in 1949 in Mann Gulch, Montana, when trapped by an oncoming forest fire, set fire to the grass around him and burned a protective circle around him and was only singed by the flames. Other firefighters ran and were charred to death. (Cited by Joshua Lerner, “How We Decide,” (2009), pp. 93-97)
Here, reason trumped emotion in a counter-intuitive situation. Psychologists, according to Lerner, call this process “metacognition.” But how many people do this? Or can do this? Perhaps another way of looking at emotions being trumped by reason is “thinking outside the box.”
The persuader is fully aware that most people don’t think outside the box. They are products of their emotions. As Eric Hoffer notes in “The True Believer,” a “herd” mentality, a mob psychology, takes over and governs behavior. [Eugene Ionesco’s 1959 play, “Rhinoceros’ physicalizes this phenomenon by turning people into rhinoceroses when they became infected with the virus of conformity.]
STOP! I’ve got too many ideas going on at once. I’m sure this is all comprehensible to the reader. Let me stop and narrow the topic by going back to “simple” persuasion [ha!] and try to make this complicated topic more accessible. [My elliptical brain constantly fights with the need for a writer to be disciplined, reasoned and sequential.]
Let’s segue from persuading the individual self to the very complicated area of trying to persuade others. The possibilities are numerous when we look at the structural aspects of persuading others.
· Persuading family members (horizontal back and forth,, vertical up and down),
· Persuading co-workers (horizontal tactics),
· Persuading employees (vertical down tactics),
· Persuading the boss (vertical up tactics),
· Persuading voters (a mixture of horizontal and vertical tactics)
· Persuading Congress (also a mixture of tactics)
· Persuading the leaders of other countries (also a mixture of tactics)
There are many other paradigms of persuasion, each requiring different approaches, but for this short essay, these seven must suffice.
The fundamental premise of all persuasion is that you must know your audience. All speech makers are taught to analyze the people to whom their message is directed. Age, sex, culture, orientation to the topic, etc. The message is tailored to these variables.
By contrast, it is the rare teacher who does a demographic analysis of his/her students. Audience adaptation is critically important to successful persuasion.
On the other hand, the teacher typically has one message and one way of delivering that message. One size fits all. The students must adapt to the teacher. Yet all human beings have different ways of learning – some are visual learners, some are auditory learners, some are kinetic learners.
Dating from the 4th century BCE, Aristotle’s “Rhetoric” remains the original casebook on persuasion. ‘The Rhetoric consists of three books. Book I offers a general overview, presenting the purposes of rhetoric and a working definition; it also offers a detailed discussion of the major contexts and types of rhetoric. Book II discusses in detail the three means of persuasion that an orator must rely on: those grounded in credibility (ethos), in the emotions and psychology of the audience (pathos), and in patterns of reasoning (logos). Book III introduces the elements of style (word choice, metaphor, and sentence structure) and arrangement (organization). Some attention is paid to delivery, but generally the reader is referred to the Poetics.”(Edward P.J. Corbett, “The Rhetoric and Poetics of Aristotle,” Modern Library edition, 1984, introduction.)
Before I get too academic and reveal all my sources, let me end this edition of an incredibly fascinating topic which has so many aspects that influence us every hour of every day.
UPCOMING CONVERSATIONS:
October 21 – “SPAR Debate” –“SPAR” stands for “spontaneous argument.” Argument” here means “a reasoned statement,” not a disagreement. We often face situations where we have to make clear statements without much preparation. This communication skill is called, “Thinking on your feet.” We take statements like “Greed is Good” and “Honesty is the best policy” and argue the pros and cons of each in a very limited time.
October 28 - “Entitlement” Do you believe in “entitlement”? You believe that you are deserving of or entitled to certain privileges. Are you entitled to “respect”? Are you entitled to an A grade in every course? Are you entitled to say, “I am King”? (Sean John’s new men’s fragrance). Does fame make you entitled? Because you are male or female, does that make you entitled? What are the criteria for being “entitled”? Another complex topic that shows up in the words we choose and the behavior we use.
November 4 – “Martial Arts and Communication – a Demonstration” Club member Ronald Johnson is a brown belt instructor in martial arts. After one of our meetings, we talked and he made some clear points about the connection between the principles of martial arts and communication. He and his students will demonstrate a few moves that capture how the two unlikely areas do connect.
What about one of these topics?
“How Do You Fire Someone?”
“Thinking”
“Rap and Hip Hop – What’s the Message?"
“Rodney King: ‘Why Can’t We Get Along?”
“Asking Questions in Class”
“Cold Calling in Sales”
“Meaning”
“The Seven Heavenly Virtues”
“Why Does History Repeat Itself?”
“Charles Borkhuis and his Radio Plays”
And dozens of others!
What happened on Wednesday, October 7, 2009? Civility
This week’s discussion attracted several new members who made significant contributions. The newcomers included Damian Forbes, Jean Mission, Christopher Couch, and Rene Vasquez. The old-timers included Richard Green, Erica Bell, Lorinda Moore, Pamela Sheppard, Charles Mason, Ronald Johnson, Markus Vayndorf, Drani Gabu, Gary Sheinfeld and Hal Wicke.
When you think of “Civility,” what comes to mind?
· What my mom taught me.
· Respect.
· Manners.
· You scratch my back. I scratch yours.
· Men opening the door for women.
· Saying “Please” and “Thank you.”
There were many examples of “Incivility:”
Obama’s speech and Congressman Joe Wilson’s shouting, “You lie!”
The shoes being thrown at President Bush in Iraq.
Serena Williams getting upset over the referee’s call that lost her the championship.
A student shouting in class, “I’m right and you are wrong.”
Why does “incivility” occur?
· It’s not just disagreeing; it’s your delivery of your disagreement.
· Controversial topics always produce incivility. “Religion, politics, sex and money should be banned from conversation.”
The group discussed a recent event in which one person took offense at how she was treated. A friend came to her aid. The appearance of box cutters raised the level of disagreement to danger. Officials took over.
· The people who are “uncivil” lack maturity. They are inexperienced, young kinds. Name-calling and sexist statements occurred. There was no attempt at a solution. They behaved with knee-jerk responses.
· “I have to choose my battles.”
· “I am comfortable with who I am. Others are not and get into trouble.
· “There’s going to be a Faculty Development workshop on “Civility”(Wednesday, November 11).”
· “It’s about critical thinking.”
· “There are two sides to civility. You have it. Others don’t”
· All kinds of behavior occur on the train – People race for seats, regardless of age, gender, infirmity, culture. Even people with canes often don’t get acknowledged.
· “You need empathy for those who race for seats on the train. They’ve had to fight for everything their entire lives.”
· Women are not respected. They are looked at as objects.
· The Women’s movement failed.” They haven’t learned to speak with respect and behave uncivilly to gain attention.
· They manipulate to get their goal.
· When people manipulate, they lose civility.
Gary spoke about the symbolic nature of men opening a door for women. Gesture and language carry much symbolism. Word usage has changed to increase awareness.
· First it was wife beating and no one paid attention
· Then it was spouse abuse and still no one paid attention
· But when the term “battered women’ entered the conversation, people paid attention
Joe Louis, the champion boxer of the 40s and 50s, was considered by whites as a “credit to his race.” For African-Americans, this term remains an insult.
Lorinda disagreed with the tone of the women’s movement. “I am a lady’s lady. I am not beholden to you for anything, yet I choose to behave in a traditional feminine manner.”
The entire discussion moved toward gender conflicts and how language portrayed one person’s view of another. “Slut,” “whore,” “stud” “bust down” are words which define attitudes toward sexual performance.
Gary shared a personal anecdote about his interchange with an English woman. There was a momentary misunderstanding about the word, “love.”
Why depend on a man or a woman? Women want security – “He’s got my back.”
A collection of random ideas that popped up.
“Civility” has its limits.
What is the level of “incivility” that we are willing to accept?
Markus reminded us that civility is social AND individual.
Civility = reciprocity. The Golden Rule at work.
Was the Civil Rights movement “uncivil”? Did it have to be to accomplish its goal?
Columbus was entirely “uncivil” with the indigenous population he met.
American imperialism is uncivil.
Inferior vs. superior – among immigrants. Those with an American passport are superior.
First generation immigrants are empowered when they become American citizens.
Do illegal immigrants have the right to be treated civilly? Is deportation “uncivil”?
As the session wound up, many conflicting ideas were thrown about. Many terms were used without definition. The verbal chaos seemed to go unnoticed as the norm in most conversations.
We stopped the discussion at 4:30 pm – a full 2 ½ hours after we began. Great energy for a very long time even though we got way off track and onto gender and other issues.
I wonder if I were more of a stick in the mud insisting on much more disciplined exchanges whether the electric air would go out of these spirited exchanges. If I don’t, the discussions should take place in a bar where every body is getting progressively drunker. If we were a dorm late at night, these would be called “bull sessions.” “Bar room philosophy” is notoriously loose, unfocused and, certainly undisciplined. .I’ll see what happens.
We always have a great time exploring these issues. So often our daily life never focuses on these Communication issues. If you have something you want us to discuss please let us know and we’ll add it to the list.
Next time bring a friend. The Communication Club is always an open discussion, limited only by time. Everyone gets a chance to speak. All opinions are welcome. Here is an opportunity for students to challenge professors’ views outside the class without any homework or assignments. You just have to show up and listen and talk if you want.

Hal Wicke