Effective Communication in the Aftermath of Two Elections: Four Ideas

by sarni

sarni is an Australian law student, political junkie and author of the 'infernality' and 'rants and tantrums' blogs. She would like to thank Structured Procrastination for assisting in the production of this post.

In the aftermath of the Australian and US elections (yes, we had our federal election recently too), what struck me was the tendency for political debate to descend into a lecture about how the other side should be thinking, and the inevitable questions post-election of "how on earth could [the other side] believe what they believe? Are they crazy?" It is in that context that I thought it was appropriate to write about effective communication and ways to achieve it.

But what is effective communication? I believe that effective communication has two elements:

First, it is when you communicate what you mean. Imagine that each time you communicate an idea to another person, you are taking a photocopy. If you do it well, the photocopy (in the other person's mind) is clear and relatively undistorted, even though it's not perfect. If you do it badly, the idea may be barely recognisable. I talk a bit about trying to communicate clearly in my blog post "Why Write Well - A Manifesto."

Second, it is about representing your views to the persons you are speaking to in the best light you can, so that they are more likely to believe you and agree with you. And that's what this post is about.

Here are four ideas for communicating effectively:

1. Engage, engage, engage. I cannot emphasise this enough (though maybe I can if I find more words starting with "E"). Engagement encompasses a lot of different things.

First, you should try and find a rapport with the people you are having a discourse with. 99% of the time, you will agree on something. Finding one thing in common opens up the possibility that you will be able to agree on other stuff. Maybe you both support a particular baseball team; maybe you both enjoy watching The Sopranos. Maybe you both enjoyed The Phantom Menace (you're on your own there, pal--it was a shocker).

If you get a consensus on one thing (anything!), then that is a starting point--a way of establishing your shared humanity. Think that's putting too strongly? Check out some of the comments on Rufus's blog, especially Jack's comments.

Second, try to match yourself to the person you are speaking to. You probably wouldn't wear a suit to go and talk to steel workers; you wouldn't wear sandals and shorts to talk to Warren Buffett. That probably seems blatantly obvious. But what about the language you use? That’s just as important. Language is a tool--use it appropriately. Would you speak to a group of high school students about the paradigmatic discourse found in the works of Foucault? No, but you might to a class of philosophy majors. Ensure that the language you use speaks to your audience.

This might sound condescending, but I am not arguing that you should speak down to people. Rather, this demonstrates your respect for your audience and your willingness to engage. When speaking to a law student, I know that I can talk about "issues" and "tests" and they will get my point. In contrast, if I talk to social science student, I might want to talk about "concepts" and "norms." Same ideas, different language.

Here's an example that might be a bit more controversial.  Say you're talking to a group of university academics, and a group of blue-collar 60-something workers to urge them to join your union. Now, when you talk about the hypothetical person in the first setting, you may be accustomed to saying want to say "she or he" or even just "she." But if you say "she" to a worker who is accustomed to hearing "he," you're lessening the effectiveness of your language. First, they'll be distracted from what you say. Second, they will probably consider you a bit of a politically correct femo-nazi, and disengage altogether from what you are actually talking about.

Now, I don't side with people who think that it's stupid to use "she" when referring to an indeterminate person. But I do think that there are more important things to convince people about.  And if I want to convince someone that union membership will help them to get better award conditions, I'm not about to cruel my case by putting them off-side needlessly.

2. Empathise and understand why the other person thinks what they think.   Use your imagination. Understand that other perspectives are also legitimate.  If you do not, you cannot change someone else's mind. You have to be receptive if you want receptiveness. Pretty much every fact situation (note: another "legalism") can give rise to more than one legitimate reaction.

As an example, here's a mental exercise for you. There was a story in The Age last week.  To quote: "A French pensioner with a life-long fear of being buried alive has designed a coffin with a built-in alarm system, water, food, ventilation and a mini-bar containing ouzo."

Stop for a minute. What is your first reaction to this? Negative or positive? What do you think of the man?

My first thought was, "Good for him--taking a proactive approach in confronting a phobia which he cannot escape."

My second thought was, "But isn't that a form of weakness? Being unable to get over his phobia?"

(Incidentally, my third thought was "Ouzo? Why ouzo?")

Is either reaction correct? Yes. Perhaps you agree with one of those positions, and disagree with the other--but that doesn't mean you should deny their legitimacy.

As you move through the discussion, go back to first principles and identify points of fundamental disagreement. Put them to one side--you will only antagonise the other person by attacking their fundamental beliefs. Work on the issues which don't fall into either camp, things on which people have a malleable opinion. Make a genuine attempt to look at the problem or issue from their point of view, and ask yourself: if I was them, what would change my mind?

[For particular examples drawn from an Australian political perspective (in particular discussing the issue of refugees), my post Preaching to the Converted might be of interest.]

3. Monitor the response you are getting and moderate your tone and invective to the person you are talking to. Some are robust and enjoy a good fight--so maybe they won't care if you call them a moron, and they'll give as good as they get. Others hate confrontation and will wall themselves off if they detect aggression--so you need to go softly. Some will turn off altogether if they feel that you are getting hysterical--so calm and reasoned is the way to go. Sounds simplistic, sure. Sounds simple, I know. But doing it requires a great deal of judgment--so practice. The more deeply you feel about whatever you're talking about, the less aware of other people's reactions you are--so watch yourself.

No matter how persuasive you are, it's useless if the other person isn't listening. One good idea is to try and engage someone's curiosity: questions = receptiveness. If someone is asking questions about what you’re talking about, you're halfway there already (we’re back to engaging the other person). Further, you need to be open and receptive as well. Be open to compromise. Conceding a point may be one of the most powerful things you can do to reach an agreeable solution. Lose a battle, win a war. Which would you prefer?

4. Sincerity counts. If you think of the other person as your enemy or opponent, they will detect that, and they will not be receptive. Mockery and biting wit is fun (who doesn't want to be a latter-day Oscar Wilde?), but it will never gain you any real friends, let alone win you any arguments.

Here are some examples taken from the US presidential campaign: comments that Biting Tongue heard at her university, and this list of states ranked by IQ. Funny, or a great explanation for the election result? Sure, if you're already on the same side. But it's ineffective. This sort of stuff is great as a way to release frustration, but really turns off moderates--that is, people who can be convinced to change their minds by reason. Let's face it: I'm a committed left-winger, and it turns me off.

Ultimately, it's up to you to decide why you speak and write. Maybe you only do it to amuse myself.  I've kept my blog going for years on that basis. But if you're seeking to influence people and win friends, then you're probably better off leaving the nastiness at home.

Comments

[David Giacalone]

Nicely said, Sarnia. Every human being should be learning these keys to good communication. I especially hope law schools are teaching these principles to law students (perhaps in a mediation-negotiation class). Even in print, we need to be better at "listening" and not just waiting for a chance to make our own points.

As I mediator I can attest that "reframing issues" and finding the common goals of the disputants can often lead to positive results.

This website is an exception, probably because of the tone taken by its Editor, but most weblogs that have a political or ideological perspective seem to attract angry Comments, and I'm pretty sure no minds are ever changed. I was disheartened this week, when I exchanged emails about the election with a 21-year-old who I have known since he was 5. When I suggested that ugly rhetoric was not effective (just as when I had told him two months ago that working to impeach Bush would turn off his audience) he replied " I disagree that there should be more politeness in the left's scrutiny and allegations over the next four years -- Bush et. al. have it coming." I'm going to send him a link to this essay.

[TPB, Esq.]

Wow. This could be retitled "General tips on effective negotiation" and woudl be equally effective. Good stuff.

[OLS]

Incidentally, my third thought was "Ouzo? Why ouzo?"

That was my first thought.

Which just proves that I really am this trivial. ;o)

- OLS