The Touro Communication Club Notes #85 – August 19, 2009

Tourocommunicationclub.blogspot.com

Communication Quote of the Week

“Argument is the worst sort of conversation.”

More people now know Jonathan Swift (1667- 1745) for the Internet server which bears the name of one of the tribes in his “Gulliver’s Travels: Would you be happy to know that Yahoos are deformed creatures, human beings in their base form? In Swift’s other lives, he was a preacher with a doctor of divinity degree who wrote political propaganda and nasty satirical essays (“A Modest Proposal” comes to mind for suggesting that the poor Irish sell their children as food for rich gentlemen and ladies.

This Week: Wednesday, August 19, 2009

2 pm - Room 222 – Midtown

“Profes sional Communication”

What is it? Why do you have to know about it? How do you learn it? Comedian Dave Chapelle says that he is bi-lingual. He knows how to talk among his friends and then when he goes into certain situations, he flips his linguistic switch to “job interview” speak. We do this kind of switching all the time – on a date, talking to our professors. We need to be aware of this switch in many other situations. Charles Mason suggested the topic.

A Note to Communicators:

Strategy: To find the macro in the micro, the universal in the particular, the communication lesson in current events.

Tactic: To recognize the factors that impact on highly charged issues.

On Wednesday, August 12, 2009, in her typically acerbic NY Times column, “Toilet-Paper Barricades,” Maureen Dowd wrote,

“…In this summer of our discontent, fights are spreading like mountain wildfires – from a town hall in Lebanon, PA [Senator Arlen Spector], to one in Kinshasa, Congo [Hillary Clinton]. Never before have we had so many tools to learn and to communicate. Yet the art of talking, listening and ascertaining the truth seems more elusive than ever in this Internet and cable age, lost in a20bitter stream of blather and misinformation….”

If we are to believe Dowd, and I do, the proliferation of communication technology and communication itself are markedly different areas. You don’t have to communicate well to use communication technology well. In fact, with the appearance of Twitter, you don’t even have to know how to communicate at all. You just have to know how to grunt – with letters and numbers.

[A digression: Just try to convince the technology gurus that applications like PowerPoint can replace communication. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney began his recent campaign using PowerPoint, but soon found that the visuals distracted from his message. Three months into his campaign, he dropped it and returned to the old fashioned “two boards and a passion’ approach to campaigning. P

Unfortunately, people have to learn to TH INK before they plug word salad into a predigested formula. It is amazing the lengths people will go to avoid the basics of communication.]

The democracy of the Internet allows all manner of verbal and visual behavior in the name of freedom of speech. Civility, the foundation of communication, has been frayed in the last 50 years to the point of invisibility. Communication has suffered.

The “debate” over health care in the last several weeks is reminiscent of the same battle during the Clinton administration in 1993. The topic continues to engender volatile behavior ever since 1948 when President Truman first introduced the idea of health care.

This debate behavior is peppered with invented facts, myths, misinterpretations, overstatements and outright lies fueled by the emotional engine that the speaker has to be “right.” This is not the kind of debate civility we try to teach in Communication. In the marketplace, emotions are not held in check. In a crisis, emotions always trump reason.

The intensity of these emotions indicates a genie has been let out of the bottle and we revert to our basic animal nature. It’s become life or death.

To my mind, the health care issue is being “borked.” “Borking” is the term for this kind of vicious communication. The term, invented during the Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Judge Robert Bork, is defined as defeating a judicial nomination through a concerted attack on the nominee's character, background and philosophy. In that 1987 case, the liberals mounted the attack. In this 2009 situation, the conservatives are using the tactic.

In a “Borking” campaign, there are no rules. Anything goes to defeat an idea or candidate. Throw as much spaghetti against the wall and hope something sticks.

Nicolo Machiavelli would love the tactic, except that the current manifestations are too emotional. Machiavelli advocated cool and calculating behavior.

Perhaps this anti-health care campaign is orchestrated. This is reminiscent of the 1993 anti-health care campaign featuring TV ad with Harry and Louise, now folk characters in political history. The 1980 anti-Dukakis campaign was well orchestrated by the late Lee Atwater, the master of jugular politics, with his Willie Horton commercials.

There is enough evidence now to suggest that some of what the media recycles IS orchestrated. W need to recognize when the “Borking” tactic is being used. Hate speech and the Josef Goebbel’s “Big Lie” propaganda are siblings of “Borking” that is a growing part of our culture.

The Communication question remains. As communicators, what can we do?

· If a word or phrase is repeated in a short time frame by several sources on one side of an argument, it is prob ably orchestrated. Sarah Palin’s invention of “death panels” is an example. “Government run health care” is another.

· We can recognize the tactic when it is being used by others.

· We learn to recognize the characteristics of hyper-emotionality. Examples include yelling, interrupting, cliché evidence – all screamed at the top of the voice.

· Reason loses in the face of hyper-emotionality. Patience and silence are our tools.

· To prevent our own tempers from exploding we have to feel our emotional temperature rising so we can turn on our internal governor.

· Use the tactic of “Going to the Balcony,” of Fry and Ury’s “Getting to Yes.” When the barrage is coming at you, close your eyes, take a deep breath and compose a reasoned response.

Critical thinking is missing in these volatile debates. It is an educational buzz word. Once we learn the buzz word, we forget to apply it. Some think that once we are able to regurgitate the definition on a test, we’re finished with critical thinking. Applying critical thinking in our daily interchange is extraordinarily difficult. W. So much else is going on. We are worrying about our kids, what to make for dinner, paying bills, what kind of grades we’re going to get, getting a date with that cute hunk or cute chick or a hundred other distractions. We have to listen. We have to observe in the midst of these distractions. In essence, we have to walk and chew gum.

Our c ommunication journey begins with awareness. What do we see? What do we hear? What do we think about? Our communication journey begins inside ourselves and then we’ll be better grounded to function effectively in the hyper-emotionality of the marketplace.

P.S.: Remind me to talk about “power distance” as it relates to President Obama and Senator Arlen Spector.

UPCOMING CONVERSATIONS:

The Club will on hiatus for the next four weeks until the second week of school. Time to wind down, pause and then gear up for the excitement of the new school year. In the meantime, store up your thoughts, email your questions to the club blog and understand the other person’s point of view in the midst of an argument!

Future topics

September 16 - “Gossip: Does It 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.

“How do You know You Don0t 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?

And dozens of others!

What happened on Wednesday, August 5, 2009? “Charisma”

What an enormous change in atmosphere this week vs. last week! Last week, people seemed to come into the session prepared to argue. This week, everyone had an upbeat excitement about the conversation. Last week, we had to “endure” the session on disagreeing, but. this week, we WANTED to know how to be more charismatic.

The upbeat crowd had three newcomers. Communication instructor Jennifer Block and students Jacqueline Thompson and Erica Bell. All three added mightily to the comments of Lorinda Moore, Pamela Sheppard, Charles Mason, Sara Tabaei, Robert Bohr and Hal Wicke.

In our usual superficial survey, the question was “Do you have charisma?”

Yes – 7

No -2

Did the great majority of people come just to hear how REALLY charismatic they were? [Hmm, I wonder.]

Hal asked for characteristics of charisma they felt they had. These were the responses:

Friendly (4)	Easy to get along with	Understanding	Loving (2)	Caring
Give Structure & Hierarchy	Love Yourself	Loves	Is a leader (2)	Move people along
Try to influence	Pleasant	Funny	Quirky	Disarming

Then, without comment, Hal continued his information gathering research, asking for well-known people who the group felt possessed “Charisma.” This is the list:

*Martin Luther King, Jr.	Patti Labelle	*President Obama	*Denzel Washington	Maya Angelou
Hillary Clinton	*Archbishop Timothy Dolan	Jesus	Adolf Hitler	*Michael Jackson
*Lawrence Fishburne	Sandra Bullock	Meryl Streep	Goldie Hawn	*Angela Bassett
Mohandas Ghandi	Mother Theresa	Mohammed Ali	Richard Chambers	Richard Nixon
John F. Kennedy

Many of the names are entertainment celebrities. The group felt the starred names possessed a special animal magnetism (sexy) which was attractive. Only two of the public figures seemed to possess a magnetism which drew people to them. The group was unanimous that Oprah Winfrey did NOT possess charisma.

More characteristics of charisma emerged from the discussion:

Is an influence	Leadership	Engaging	Makes people interested	Visible in public
Is a communicator	Strong personality	Has a presence	Fills up a room	Draws attention
Appearance	Shining from within	Commands attention	Warm	Conveys love
Jackson – shy but still commands attention	Turn it off and turn it on (Byoncé)	Conditional	Sexy	Possesses conviction

We spent some time talking about the charismatic qualities of Martin Luther King, Jr.

A Leader	Spirituality	A higher level of morality	Untouchable20	Special
X-factor	In tegrity	Sacrifices	Self-sacrifice	Gesture

Robert exclaimed that, for Russians, Michael Jackson was the greatest artist of all time. Others felt Jackson was certainly one of the top three. Robert returned to how Richard Nixon was so very charismatic - to the loud disagreement of the group. We weren’t going toward this kind of circular direction.

Hal changed the discussion, asking, “How do you become [more] charismatic?” The answers came quickly – almost too quickly and easily – as if people had previously given obtaining charisma some thought. The thoughts varied widely.

Have a goal	A Purpose in life	Have a calling	Change lives	Become a teacher
Have a model	Inspiration	Create hope	Spirituality	Altruism
Possess a system of values	Possess morals	Respect	Predestined	Focus & Concentration
Let go & let God	Don’t think too much	It’s never too late	Give tough love

Malcolm Gladwell, in his newest best-seller, “Outliers,” suggests a 1 0,000 hour minimum before one achieves external success. He recalls how the Beatles spent thousands of hours playing eight hours a day 7 days a week for several months at a time in the basement of a Hamburg, German strip joint. By the time they were on the Ed Sullivan show in 1964, their music and their performing skills were embedded within each of them.

For some reason, the discussion moved toward the people who were near and around us: Perhaps these kinds of people were NOT charismatic. They were

Looking for a handout	Babies having babies	Parents not an influence	Clash of cultures –school and the street	Perception that language skills are lacking
Stubborn	Don’t walk the talk	Difficulty in implementing new ideas	Two lost generations from AIDS & crack 0A	Start where they are

Although we needed to explore further the entire topic of charisma, it was time to ask Lorinda’s question: “What did we learn to day?”

· Most agreed they learned there are different culture, different ideas, different goals, different strengths and weaknesses.

· A few agreed that everybody has charisma. It is a potential that needs to be developed by communicating with one’s self.

· We have to wary not to shut down in the face of difficulties. “Don’t let anyone rain on our parade.”

· Three people commented on how much they learned about themselves from the recent Civil Rights trip to Alabama. To learn vividly about the oppression, to20discover the bond between the Jews and blacks in their parallel histories.

Frankly, I was surprised at the direction of the discussion in its latter moments. Perhaps fatigue set in, but we strayed from our topic of charisma. I still believe that our conversations – where ever they go – are important times for sharing who we are as people. These discussions build a sense of community so often missing in New York City. As I’ve commented in the discussions, I am split between my conditioning as a teacher and just letting the discussion flow where ever it goes. We need to explore this further.

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

Hal Wicke