The Touro Communication Club Notes #92 –October14, 2009

Tourocommunicationclub.blogspot.com

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 4^th 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

The Touro Communication Club Notes #91 –October 7, 2009

Tourocommunicationclub.blogspot.com

Communication Quote of the Week

“Anytime four New Yorkers get into a cab together without arguing, a bank robbery has just taken place.”

Johnny Carson, the late comedian, was host of “The Tonight Show starring Johnny Carson” for thirty years. During his career, he won six Emmy Awards, a Peabody Award and received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1992.

The Touro Communication Club

2 pm - Wednesday, October 14, 2009 – Room 223

“Civility”

Several weeks ago, Hal wrote about “On Civility” in this blog. In August, we saw a Congressman yell, “You lie!” during a speech by President Obama. We watched a month of yelling in August with the health care “debates.” We saw professional tennis players Serena Williams and Roger Federer behave badly when they lost. The Pittsburgh G20 summit showed more evidence of incivility. Comedian Dave Letterman announces his pre-marital affairs during his show. Elected officials continue to betray their wives. A student shouts in a class that he is right and they are wrong. Incivility occurs at all levels of society. How do we recognize it? Why does it occur? Is incivility just part of our life? How do we handle incivility when it is directed at us? Are we always uncivil at times?

A Note to Communicators:

The Effects of an Argument Culture

Strategy: To notice patterns of communication behavior and deconstruct these verbal and non-verbal behaviors.

Tactic: To become more aware of the factors that affect and filter communication.

This week’s entry takes its cue from the 1999 book “The Argument Culture” by linguist Deborah Tannen. The subtitle is “Moving from Debate to Dialogue.” Tannen is one of a very small handful of public intellectuals who are interested in communication issues. With several books focused on communication issues for women, Dr. Tannen’s 2009 book is You Were Always Mom's Favorite!: Sisters in Conversation Throughout Their Lives

Even ten years after Tannen’s book, the “argument culture” still prevails in American public life. Last summer saw a number of incidents which highlights how argumentative public figures can be when they are met with disagreement or something they don’t like. Perhaps we should consider “argument” as an endemic part of the civil structure we call “democracy.” If we are to accept that “all men [and women] are equal,” then don’t we have to accept the reality that we will not agree on everything – or anythingsometimes. Why does this occur?

One view is that our culture does intrinsically support a binary view of the world. Some examples may support this view.

· Everything is either/or, rarely both/and.

· If you don’t win, you lose.

· In a world that is getting faster every moment, there is no time for shades of gray.

· You are either right or you are wrong.

· If you have a nuanced point of view, the noise from the opposition will drown out you and your ideas.

Even President Obama’s receipt of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize this week has generated for and against positions. Who ever heard of a middle ground?

All our models for discourse are binary: On/off switches without dimmers. There are only two major political parties. Sports teams win or lose. Courts of law are win/lose arenas. My religion is the only one; other religions are wrong.

As Green Bay Packer’s legendary coach, Vince Lombardi, once said, “Winning isn’t everything; it’s the only thing,” On a football field, such singularity of purpose is very important.

However, that lesson leaves the athletic field and carries into our daily life. We have only two options in our lives: win or lose.

· “If I don’t get an A, I fail. A B is not acceptable.”< /FONT>

· ““If I don’t get an A, I’m a terrible person.”

· “If I don’t win the Lotto, I’m a loser.”

· “If I don’t win, I must be wrong.”

· If I don’t leap a tall building at a single bound, I’m a failure.”

The psychology beneath these outlooks is for the psychologists, not communicators. We focus on the operational aspects of communication. Whatever the psychology, the two-choice-only option ratchets up an enormous tension.

Such a world view lends itself to argument. More importantly, you must be right in your world view, or you are embarrassed by being wrong.

Proof – evidence – is primary in a binary world. As René Descartes has conditioned us to believe, we delete emotions as any factor in proving your “rational” point that is syllogistically proved.

But emotions are powerful forces. Unless we sit on them, they escape and infect our pristine rational position. It is at this vulnerable moment that powerful emotions replace any chance of reason dominating a disagreement. Then an argument explodes.

All of this discussion is but a first draft of a much larger communication issue. As I reread what I’ve just written, there are many gaps in the sequence of my words. I have to spend another time filling out this sketch.

Since I would support Tannen’s outlook that we live in a c ulture of argument, perhaps I could proceed in a couple of directions. I could continue to bemoan this vitriolic atmosphere, adding more examples and some history. I could explore alternatives to argument, particularly those of dialogue which accept differences among and between people and work toward commonalities, Or I could try briefly to how to understand this dichotomous environment and find ways to move toward more productive outcomes.

I’ll explore briefly the third option. I will start with a basic statement: “All people are different.” I’m pretty sure that no one will disagree with this cliché. If that axiom is true, then it should follow that we are different in many ways. Even twins are different.

Without belaboring the point, we need to realize that, although we accept that we are all different, we expect others to behave the same way as we do. We have a mental flip to “know” one thing in the abstract, but “expect” that we should behave identically=2 0– almost.

Perhaps we’ll accept differences from A to B, but beyond B, things become dicey. The idea needs further exploration, but as communicators we must realize that we don’t live in that ideal world where everyone believes and behaves as we do.

Our continuing challenge is how to recognize differences quickly, accept them, understand them and, if you and your partner choose, mediate them toward a productive outcome.

As always, our first requirement is to be awake.

:”Our spirits are c orroded by living in an atmosphere of unrelenting contention – the argument culture.” [Deborah Tannen, “The Argument Culture” p. 3]

The subtitle of Tannen’s book, “Moving from Debate to Dialogue” is a rich area to explore.

To be continued – sometime.

UPCOMING CONVERSATIONS:

October 21 – “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 take these behaviors as the norm. We’ll explore as many as time allows. They include: lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride.

October 21 – “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 e ntitled? What are the criteria for being “entitled”? Another complex topic that shows up in the words we choose and the behavior we use.

What about one of these topics?

“How Do You Fire Someone?”

“Thinking”

“Rap and Hip Hop – What’s the Message?"

”SPAR Debate”

“Rodney King: ‘Why Can’t We Get Along?”

“Asking Questions in Class”

“Cold Calling in Sales”

“Communication Lessons from Martial Arts”

“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? “Giving Criticism”

Newcomer Iris Hymowitz was game in sharing her views with Erica Bell, Drani Gabu, Donne Kampel, Carlisle Yearwood, Gary Sheinfeld, Markus Vayndorf, Lorinda Moore, Meggy Lindsay, Charles Mason, Ronald Johnson and Hal Wicke

Hal wrote a few questions on the board:

· What is criticism?

· What kinds of criticism are there?

· What gives you the right to give criticism to someone?

· Is there such a thing as “constructive criticism”?

· When do you give criticism?

· How do you do it?

Some responses to “When do you give criticism?”

· When something is wrong.

· When I am annoyed.

· I’m just expressing my opinion.

· I’m trying to improve ideas.

When you give criticism, do you find yourself in a particular role that gives you the “right” to give criticism?

· A person of recognized authority - teacher, boss, police officer

· Criticism is part of the job.

· Students expect criticism from teachers which is “respectful.”

· A parent to child. What about a parent to a child of someone else?

Lorinda cited an incident on the train where she approached several people who were swearing loudly, suggesting that they should not use profanity – there were other ways of expressing themselves.

What if you don’t have any of these roles?

Two people said “I give it anyway because my boss was wrong and I knew better.” One said she was suspended for insubordination and later left her job.

You have the right to criticize when you are someone’s friend. Lots of disagreement

Criticism becomes. advice in a job interview, “You’d better wear more appropriate clothes to work here.” Particularly in a job situation where shared values are important to achieve a common goal.

Where does “power” enter the equation?

· A person “should” do something – says who?

· The student challenges the teacher on a specific point or a point of view. “You all are wrong and I am right,” says a student to the class

What about “power distance”? [The phenomena of the power built into hierarchy and superior/inferior relationships.]

· Boss/employee.

· Officer/enlisted person.

· Teacher/student.

· Parent/child.

Or arguable power distance relationships of women being superior to men and the reverse or racial and ethnic relationships where one race or culture is superior to another.

Gary described an instance where two people were 0making out” during the movie “Schindler’s List.” There are certain expectations in specific circumstances – inappropriate behavior in a place of worship, or in a class.

The pattern of incidents discussed seemed to be that conflict occurred when one or more persons were sufficiently absorbed in his/their world (living in a bubble?) to be unaware of or deliberately defying the prevailing value system in the environment. If “Life is all about me,” then it is likely that there will be conflict and hostility when that person(s) is criticized.

Drani spoke about growing up in Sudan and learning that politics, money and religion were not subjects to be discussed because there would be trouble. Hal suggested that sexual issues be included in the list of difficult topics in a ”polite” conversation. To bring such a topic up, Drani said, would create many problems.

Hal brought up the international incident several years ago when the satirical cartoons making fun of Islam’s founder were published in a Danish newspaper and caused riots and at least one killing in Denmark and other countries.

The discussion moved to the Jewish Holocaust and one question asked by a student, “How many people have to die to have a holocaust?”

Markus defined criticism as “an objective reaction to what does not work and have both physical and logical aspects.” He continued his explanation at the blackboard and the group seemed not to follow his lecture.

Clearly tired at this point, the group seemed to lose focus. Among the topics that were tossed about:

· The idea of exploring “constructive criticism” was lost in lots of cross-talk.

· Criticizing professors .and bosses – everyone has that right.

· Professors with accents who cannot be understood

· “Everyone has the right to criticize anyone.” Lots of discussion here.

· Cautions; Think twice before you speak. Be calm, Step out of the situation

· Erica’s Mom’s saying, “A closed mouth doesn’t get fed.”

· Pick your battles.

· Non-verbal clues like sustained eye contact create negative critical environments.

· One person’s criticism is another’s advice.

Like many of our discussions, this one on criticism was beginning to scratch the surface as we ran out of energy. Perhaps at some point we can become more disciplined in keeping our focus narrowed on an area until we exhaust its possibilities. Too often we skip from topic to topic – interesting at the moment, but distracting from fully understanding what other people are saying.

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

The Touro Communication Club Notes #90 –October 7, 2009

Tourocommunicationclub.blogspot.com

Communication Quote of the Week

Dedicated to those who open their mouths:

He who knows not and knows not that he knows not, is a fool.

But he who knows not and knows that he knows not is a very wise man."

Mr. Raymond Bardwell, of Kansas City, MO, is well known for being the father of Ms. Gena Bardwell, 

currently of the Touro College Communication Department in New York City. Mr. Bardwell’s wise sayings

are legion and his wisdom is legendary in the Bardwell clan. The quotation was generated by our recent 

discussion on “Knowing.” 

The Touro Communication Club

2 pm - Wednesday, October 7, 2009 – Room 223< /div>

“Giving Criticism”-

We all do it. We criticize our bosses, our teachers, our parents, our friends. Why do we do it? How do we do it? When do we give criticism? Why do we do it behind people’s backs? Is there such a thing as ‘Constructive Criticism’? This topic is an emotional time-bomb. We’ll discuss why and how we can do it more productively.

A Note to Communicators:

Factors that Affect Communication

Strategy: To notice patterns of communication behavior and deconstruct these verbal and non-verbal behaviors.

Tactic: To become more aware of the factors that affect and filter communication.

Most of the time we are concerned about getting our message across to the person in front of us – our child ren, our lover, our co-worker, our boss and so on. When we speak to another, it is almost as if we put blinders on and forget about our peripheral vision.

We also put blinders on all the factors that form the context of our message. We focus on the content of the message. We are unaware of what is going on non-verbally as we speak. Are we aware of our facial expressions? Our vocal inflections (paralanguage)? Our body language (kinesics)?

I think not. We are unlike actors. They are trained to be aware of these contextual factors, but they don’t have to worry about the message. The playwright has taken care of that.

An ideal for an individual’s communication vision is to become aware of all the external AND internal factors in a message AS the message was being delivered. An enormous task that begins with fundamental awareness.

With Jude Law playing “Hamlet” on Broadway now. I am reminded of part of Hamlet’s speech to Horatio at the end of the graveyard scene (Act V Scene ii).

…There's a special providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be now, 'tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come: the readiness is all.

“The readiness is all” is what counts in Hamlet’s pursuit of vengeance. We must be prepared in our daily life. If we aren’t, we have smaller personal versions of 9/11/09 or Vietnam or 12/7/41, Are we ready for the commitment to winning the war in Afghanistan? No one has in their tragic history of invading armies.

Whoops! I digressed. Back to the personal level. We must be aware of the baggage we carry in our communication messages, baggage which leaks into our exchanges. We must be aware of the person we are speaking to and what we can figure out of their own baggage.

If “readiness is all” in all our communication dealings, we must be aware of the impact of culture, belief systems, gender, power and emotion which filter every message we deliver.

A tall requirement for mere “readiness." Perhaps we should take the Buddhist approach and empty ourselves of Western concepts of self.

UPCOMING CONVERSATIONS:

October 14 – “Civility” – Several weeks ago, this blogger wrote about “On Civility.” The Pittsburgh G20 summit this past week is another evidence of incivility. President Obama commented that the demonstrations were “mild” compared to past G20 summits. Incivility occurs at all levels of society. How do we recognize it? Is incivility just part of our life? How do we handle incivility when it is directed at us? Are we uncivil at times?

October 21 – “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 take these behaviors as=2 0the norm. We’ll explore as many as time allows. They include: lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride.

What about one of these topics?

“How Do You Fire Someone?”

“Thinking”

“Rap and Hip Hop – What’s the Message?"

”SPAR Debate”

“Rodney King: ‘Why Can’t We Get Along?”

“Asking Questions in Class”

“Cold Calling in Sales”

“Communication Lessons from Martial Arts”

“The Seven Heavenly Virtues”

“Why Does History Repeat Itself?”

“Charles Borkhuis and his Radio Plays”

And dozens of others!

What happened on Wednesday, September 16, 2009? “Elevator Speeches”

Newcomer Jason Tavarez had no trouble joining in the spirited exchange among regulars Robert Bohr, Drani Gabu, Carlisle Yearwood, Charles Mason, Markus Vayndorf and Hal Wicke.

Hal described the “Elevator Speech” as an impromptu presentation on a specific topic usually lasting around 30 seconds. The format takes its name from a situation where you meet someone of importance at an elevator and have about 30 seconds to summarize your thoughts in the time it takes the elevator to rise to its final destination.

Typical “Elevator Speeches” might be a job introduction, a product summary, a proposal for a change in a way of doing something. The impromptu speeches given at weddings, bar/bas mitzvahs and other celebrations are other occasions.

Most importantly, the exercise teaches us to think on our feet under pressure.

Hal shared his sudden use of the elevator speech format just that morning when he chose to explain the developing program on Experiential Learning to an important potential supporter.

The group began with the all important audience analysis. If we have the chance to prepare before speaking, we should do a quick demographic analysis of the audience. An analysis of our group documented quickly 5 males, one female, 4 faculty, 2 students, 3 born outside U.S. and various ages.

The analysis might have gone into more depth if we were to orchestrate a marketing and PR campaign of a new idea, product or service with focus groups. Politicians, religious figures, and teachers sell ideas. Doctors, lawyers, electricians and garage repair people sell services. Inventors, manufacturers and store owners sell products. A focus group will better help the marketer understand the audience to whom the campaign is directed.

We explored how various people discovered the Communication Club. Word of mouth was the most prevalent way the club was marketed to the group.

During the discussion, one person called Touro students “products.” Another student took great except ion to being called a product: “I am a human being.” Others raised the idea that Touro students were a “product” of their education.

The student remained adamant in her view, despite acknowledging that a student could be a “product” – the culmination -of her Touro education.

We got sidetracked - this is very easy to do in our discussions – on the White House intrusion into the NY State Governor’s race with its pressuring Governor Patterson not to run.

We focused on how different each Touro site was from the other. Some sites made a demonstrably better impression than others.

In the discussion, it became cl ear that most people were reacting to externals while suggesting the internals – the teaching – was about the same. Carlisle exclaimed that when he saw the architecture at City College as a student, he was “sold.”

There was a vigorous discussion of the many factors which contribute to the students’ perception of their education. As the discussion finished, the group was figuring out concrete ways to improve their perceptions.

Happily, the best outcome of a good discussion is always movement toward some action.

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