Friday, September 4, 2009

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

Thursday, August 13, 2009

The Touro Communication Club Notes #84
Tourocommunicationclub.blogspot.com


Two Communication Quotes of the Week
“Speak when you are angry--and you will make the best speech you'll ever regret.”
Laurence J. Peter, American educator & writer. Author of “The Peter Principle”(1968) which states "In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence ... i n time every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out its duties ... Work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence."
As Winston Churchill said, “To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.


This Week: Wednesday, August 12, 2009
2 pm - Room 222 – Midtown
“Charisma”
It’s called the “X” factor. What is that certain “something” that makes some people more magnetically attractive than others? Are you born with it? Can you learn it? In the era of so many PR manufactured celebrities and situations, it’s hard for the untrained eye to know what is really “charismatic” in a person or what is fake charisma - just smoke and mirrors. As always, a riveting topic.


A Note to Communicators:
Strategy: To discover ways to apply theory to practice.
Tactic: To become aware of how many obstacles there are to productive communication

Not Keeping a Cool Head in an Emotionally Charged Situation #2
Well, this week the Club meeting (described in some detail below) failed miserably in our mission to disagree without being disagreeable. In I reflecting afterwards on what happened, I offer the following obvious and not so obvious truisms:
Communication is complex – always. It always has many layers.
Communication is difficult - always.
Communication is fragile -always.
Communication is filled with invisible obstacles.
It is hard for people to listen.
· It is hard to refrain from interrupting.
· Often people start talking without any apparent awareness of where a discussion will lead them.
Often there is no internal guidance system.

It doesn’t take much to set off a disagreement, particularly on a volatile topic.

· You never know what is going to set off an emotional reaction. Imagine an invisible time bomb
waiting to explode.

· Some people are struck dumb when an angry interchange occurs. The argument suddenly
becomes a spectator sport.

· Spectators rarely move toward mediating. an argument.

· When there are no apparent consequences, an angry emotion can burst forth without
constraint.

· Anger reduces language to a series of short, monosyllabic bursts.

Ad hominum attacks (attack the person, not the issue) are frequent.

· The expressed anger feels like an oil geyser was spewing out without any internal control. The mind is by-passed.

· Although no swearing was used in Wednesday’s angry interchange, the atmosphere was poisoned by the acrimony.

· Most communication situations do not have a referee (In this case, Hal Wicke was present to keep peace.) But where’s the cop when you need him?

· Communication exchanges within a clearly prescribed hierarchy can minimize hostile outbreaks because the structure is clear and everyone knows who is in charge. Police, judge, military officer, teacher, priest/minister/rabbi/imam, parent.

When the power balance between participants appears to be equal, then verbal manipulation becomes visible in order to gain advantage.

· When the power balance between communicators is unequal, (boss/employee, teacher/student, judge/lawyer, police/citizen, parent/child, priest/believer), verbal manipulation is constrained by the power relationship. Some kind of punishment is the feared reward for challenging the authority.

I’m sure there are many more Communication principles that I could extract from the meeting, but that’s enough for now. Mind you, all of this is arguable, so write your comments at the end of this blog. I’m looking for light, not heat.

Clearly we have much more work to do in the Club to be able to internalize a sense of productive communication that does not deteriorate into argument – and bloodshed. Since the beginning of time, people have used guns and knives and bombs to solve problems because they did not know how resolve their difficulties any other way. They also did not believe there was any other way than to resolve disagreements. The way is negotiation – long, arduous negotiation to a resolution.
Let me turn briefly to three items in the national news this week where there is major disagreement.
· The confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor by the Senate.
· The health care debate
·
President Clinton’s role as Superman saving the American Way as he shepherded the release of the two American journalists from North Korea

In the last decade, American citizens have become familiar with a deadlocked Congress, just as New Yorkers have become used to a dysfunctional Legislature in Albany. President Obama promised bi-partisanship but the Republicans didn’t hear him. In both the health care issue and the Sotomayor confirmation proceedings, both Democratic and Republican members of Congress seem to take intractable sides. Regardless of what is said on either side, no one moves. Each side is right. There is no middle ground. The disagreement seems to have become embedded in our politics. To give an inch is to lose.

Unlike the previous eight years, one party, the Democrats this time, has the power of sixty votes in the Senate (if you count the ailing Senators Byrd and Kennedy).Who needs bi-partisanship when you have the power? Remember Teddy Roosevelt’s “Speak softly but carry a big stick”? We’ve seen that power work with the vote on Sotomayor. We wait to see how the power unfolds on the health care issue.

In a splendidly surprising resolution of a temporary conflict with North Korea, Bill Clinton put on Clark Kent’s cape to save the two American women, sentenced to 12 years in jail for wrong doing in the eyes of Kim Jong Il. But Kim has a fatal flaw in his standoff with the United States. He wanted meet Bill. The message got to the Clinton White House too la te. President George W. Bush wouldn’t have anything to do with an “axis of evil” country. Then Kim saw his chance when Barack got elected. Through back channels, he wants Bill to come to dinner. But how to do it? Ah, two innocent Americans could be arrested and accused of bad things. “I’ll use them as hostages until Bill comes to rescue them,” Kim thought. And so, as it is writ, it came to pass.

The clue to resolving a conflict – albeit a minor one in this case – is to have an ace up your sleeve. Have something the other guy wants. (We got Clinton. Kim wants him.) Then he will capitulate. That was easy.

Now let’s raise the stakes. If Kim were to have held the women hostage or tortured them in exchange for something intolerable, like recognizing North Korea as a nuclear power, I don’t think Obama would have caved in and Bill would not have been able to wear Superman’s cape.

UPCOMING CONVERSATIONS:
August 19 – “Professional 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.

Future topics
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.

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, August 5, 2009?
“Disagreeing Without Being Disagreeable”
For two hours, our band of regulars demonstrated that we have a long way to go in understanding the topic. Too often hot buttons were hit and shouting and ad hominum attacks ensued. Thankfully, there was no cursing and the group was able to come down and exchange apologies. Teachable moments are sometimes very painful.

The group included Pamela Sheppard. Donne Kampel, Charles Mason, Lorinda Moore, Ronald Johnson, Robert Bohr, Brian Brown and Hal Wicke. Markus Vayndorf peak in during a break in his class.

On the teacher’s desk in Room 222 was a stack of TIME OUT magazines, the current Student Guide issue – “Everything you need to know about the world’s greatest city.”

Someone had noticed in the magazine a photo of a nude woman sitting in a chair. The caption read “Be a Nude Model” at the School of Visual Arts. It was in the section “Easy Money” – ways people can make extra cash. According to the ad, the prerequisites are “stillness, boldness.”

Sensing the possibility of a disagreement, Hal asked the group, “Do you think this issue of TIME OUT magazine should be distributed at Touro?”

Despite much chatter and cross-talk about the photo, Hal extracted the following vote

YES the magazine should be distributed at Touro – 3
NO the magazine should NOT be distributed at Touro 4

Hal did not vote.
For the sake of transparency, the vote was divided along gender lines. Three men said “yes.” Three women and one man said “no.”

As best as Hal could record them amidst the noise, the reasons for saying “no” included:

This is an Orthodox Jewish school and such pictures are not allowed.

It is offensive to women and reinforces their history of being objectified in society

We have too much of this on television.

This is pornography.

The reasons for saying “yes” included:

There is nothing offensive about the photograph.

·This is a college and the students here are adults.

You see this kind of nudity in the Metropolitan Museum of Art

This is not pornography.

Censoring the photo violates freedom of speech.

During the discussion, several people left the room to return after a few moments.

Someone said, “One man’s trash is another man’s treasure.”

As the opinions flew quickly back and forth, the decibel level in the room rose appreciably. There was shouting and some name-calling. (Ad hominum arguments), labeling as well as the introduction of several irrelevant issues

The momentum of the exchange slowed occasionally only to speed when someone hit a new nerve. Several issues were clarified:


The responsibilities of a private institution are different from a public one.
·
A person’s response would vary according to the situation. Is it a personal opinion as a private
citizen? Or is the person functioning in a role of a teacher or administrator?
·
Shouting doesn’t work to persuade people to your opinion.
·
We have to agree on what is a fact and what is an opinion. (this is a current issue with the
Birther’s movement challenging President Obama’s birth certificate.).
·
We argue for “no reason.” (I wonder about this one.)

Hal’s suggestion of inserting a pause between an action and a reaction was lost in the noise.
As the arguments began to repeat themselves, Hal called a halt to the discussion. He asked
the group to suggest ways to come together and restore the positive feeling we usually have
during these sessions.

One person suggested that we should have a three step procedure:
1 – Introduce everyone.
2 – If you are wrong, you should apologize.
3 – One person at a time should speak.

Hal suggested that when we feel ourselves becoming angry, we mentally choose to “Go to the Balcony.” This strategy, often taught in anger management classes, is taken from “Getting to Yes” by Roger Fischer and William Ury, the classic negotiation book developed by the Harvard Negotiation Project. It was used by President Jimmy Carter in his shuttle diplomacy over between Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat in the 1970’s.

The principal adversaries apologized to each other and helped to clear the air.

Ultimately, Hal failed in his job Facilitator turned to referee as Hal’s role changed during the session, trying to referee a modicum of decorum among the many opposing shouted opinions. Fortunately, he was not forced to stand and separate the verbal opponents.

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

This was Brian Brown’s last session with the Club. As we reported in a previous entry, he is moving next week to Texas to enroll in a college in Austin, Texas. He will be keeping in touch via the blog. Brian’s address and email are:

Brian Brown
164 Ashwood North
Kyle, TX 78640
UPDATE: The edition of TIME OUT magazine in question was collected and put in the trash.
As always, these sessions are open for everyone to attend. Bring a friend and join the excitement. See you next time.

Hal Wicke

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

The Touro Communication Club Notes #83
Tourocommunicationclub.blogspot.com

Communication Quote of the Week
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan – the late illustrious New York Senator who combined academics, politics and social change. He was involved with much important legislation affecting every day citizens.

This Week: Wednesday, August 5, 2009
2 pm - Room 223 – Midtown
“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 begin to explore this volatile topic and develop some productive strategies and tactics.

A Note to Communicators:

Strategy: To explore the interrelationships between emotions and reason in decision making.
Tactic: To discover how the baggage that we all20carry impacts on an event and affects it.

Keeping a Cool Head in Emotionally Charged Situations
This week’s “Beer Summit” has galvanized media hoopla and hundreds of barber shop and water cooler arguments. President Obama brought the “combatants” Professor Gates and Sgt Crowley together for a beer on the White House Lawn. With that barely announced the next pot boiler was the choice of beer – local or imported. The contents of the discussion were fortunately off-the record, but apparently Gates and Crowley will continue their discussion over a future lunch. No doubt this incident will be analyzed to death in future replays.

When passions are ignited – whether race or love or beer – the mind shuts down. Emotions trump reason in a crisis every time. If that is a truism, then what are the elements which can precipitate an explosion? How can an individual control his/her emotional responses to make a productive contribution to the resolution of a volatile situation?

In Malcolm Gladwell’s second best seller, Blink, he brings together a variety of evidence from the art world to the world of police behavior to understand how we behave in a blink of an eye. What are the factors that operate when we make snap decisions?

We make snap decisions all the time. That person is pretty or good-looking. That professor sucks. That applicant won’t work out. That movie was terrible. This pizza is bad. The old cliché, “You don’t have a second chance to make first impressions,’ is wise advice in most situations.

However, when a snap decision is made as the emotional temperature of the situation is raised to near boiling, explosions are a heartbeat away from all hell breaking loose. How to prevent these explosions is important.

Sgt Crowley brought extensive training to the potentially explosive situation with Professor Gates. Apparently, Crowley has taught police seminars about behaving under the stress of racially charged situations. "Keeping cool under fire” is the soldier’s mantra.

Most people have never had this kind of training. Some people explode instantly when another disagrees with them. Others cave in and are silent and resentful, only to explode later or carry a permanent grudge.

Our brains don’t normally come wired with the skills of productive behavior. We have to be taught, by life, by a teacher or mentor or by one’s self. Reacting to a pin prick produces an immediate “Ouch.” This is a reflex action. Reacting to a physical assault can be reflexive. But your reaction to an insult involves a clear mental choice.

This self- training begins with becoming AWARE of yourself – of your thoughts, your behavior, the reactions others have to you, the space you occupy, etc. Here are some thoughts on how to keep a cool head in an emotionally charged situation.

  • Recognize your emotional reaction beginning to appear in your solar plexus and use your training to guide and direct it. Actors are trained to develop their emotions and then to guide them to a productive outcome.
  • “Go to the balcony,” as Roger Fischer and William Ury suggest in “Getting to Yes.” Cut the umbilical cord between your mind and you emotions and mentally separate yourself from the situation.
  • Recognize that you have a choice - free will – in what you do with your words and actions.
  • Choose not to be reactive to your opponent’s words or behavior. Shooting from the lip or shooting from the hip usually doesn’t work well.
  • Slow the process down. Rushing your words and your actions exacerbates a tense situation.
  • Choose your words very carefully.
  • Make no overt actions that may be misinterpreted.
  • Rehearse or be trained in a procedure that is embedded in our emotional musculature.
As Rudyard Kipling reminds us in his famous poem “If,” to keep our heads when all about us are losing theirs and blaming it on us.

UPCOMING CONVERSATIONS:
August 12 – “Charisma” It’s called the “X” factor. What is that certain “something” that makes some people more magnetically attractive than others? Are you born with it? Can you learn it? In the era of so many PR manufactured celebrities and situations, it’s hard for the untrained eye to know what is really “charismatic” in a person or what is fake charisma -just smoke and mirrors. As always, a riveting topic.

August 19 – “Professional 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.

Future topics
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.

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 29, 2009?

“Ethics and the Golden Rule”
Our hardy band of regulars included Pamela Sheppard, Ronald Johnson, Lorinda Moore, Carlisle Yearwood, David Nussbaum, Charles Mason and Hal Wicke. Newcomer Dr. Sabra Brock of the Business faculty, recently returned from a semester teaching at Touro Berlin, joined us at the end.

Predictably, Hal started the discussion with a Yes/No question to get clear the points of view.

Question: Do you believe there is a right and wrong?
Yes 3
No 1

Ronald argued that we are all born with an innate sense of right and wrong. Pamela said she knew right from wrong from a feeling in the pit of her stomach. Lorinda said that everybody had their own sense of right and wrong. Then we began a brief discussion about what is truth and what is real.

Question: Did President Obama make a mistake when he commented in a new conference on the Gates/Crowley incident?

Yes 3
No 2

Much discussion followed here. The question was asked, “Why is there so much disagreement? Does the disagreement come from an ethical foundation?” More discussion.

What happens if you think a decision is wrong? In a family? At work? I look for consensus, said one person. If I am the father, I make the decisions, said another. That comment produces much reaction. At one point, when does a child become an adult? At age 12-13 – the time for the bar and bas mitzvah.

The discussion moved vigorously around the Obama-Gates-Crowley incident with comments flying all around. Colin Powell’s comments were highlighted. Gates’ being handcuffed in front was a sign of police courtesy. There was a consensus that emotions trumped reason and Obama made a mistake when he injected himself into the incident when he said the Cambridge police “acted stupidly.”

Why does a master strategist like Obama make a mistake like that? Charles Mason asked. Hal offered two items, “A Grand Master Chess champion is reputed to have some 3,000 moves in his head at any one time.”

Was Obama considering the consequences of a response before he opened his mouth? No one could read his mind, but this kind of momentary pause before saying something is explored in Malcolm Gladwell’s best seller, Blink.” Gladwell reports that the 41 shots that killed Amadou Dialo were fired in 1.4 seconds. Fear and the officers’ groupthink exacerbated situation.

After the group agreed on the general position that Sgt Crowley acted professionally and Professor Gates did not, Hal asked “What would happen if you had this same discussion on the corner of 125th Street and Lenox Avenue in Harlem?” Everyone chimed in, saying that the conclusion would probably be the opposite. Charles commented, “Move and you bring the neighborhood with you.”

The discussion moved to the harsh Rockefeller Drug laws on the 1970s. Many anecdotes were exchanged.

Question: What if everyone is cheating in class, what do you do? Do you report the cheating? Do you stand up to the pressure? The extreme example is to give one’s life for a cause, as did Martin Luther King, Jr.

Question: Do you act ethically 100% of the time?
Yes - 4
No – 3

Several defined ethics as traditional civil behavior as men opening doors for women. Hal suggested that, although civil behavior is a small aspect of ethics, the word refers to moral concepts of right and wrong. More clarification is needed.

We agreed that some people are ethically challenged. We also cleared up the frequent confusion of ethnicity with ethics.

Dr. Sabra Brock joined us for the last few minutes. She spent the last semester as visiting professor of Business at Touro Berlin. Asked to compare SGS students with the Touro Berlin students, she observed that the German students were conditioned to bear the guilt of Hitler’s actions and were often confused by having to bear the burden of actions of their ancestors 60 years ago.

As we closed at about 4:15 pm, we focused on upcoming topics. Following up on issues of courtesy, the group supported Charles Mason’s suggestion of “Professional Communication” as a future topic.

We barely scratched the surface of our topic for the week. Allowing the discussion to follow its own course, we never really explored the Golden Rule. There seems to be an unresolved division of feelings that our discussions should go where they lead us and that they should be guided more.

Despite this reservation, everyone becomes entirely engaged for more than two hours, candidly sharing ideas and anecdotes. As Samuel Beckett says, “Time flies when you’re having fun.”
As always, these sessions are open for everyone to attend. Bring a friend and join the excitement. See you next time.

Hal Wicke