A Quest for Joy

I finally got around to watching “Inside Out” the other day. If you’re not familiar with it, it’s a Disney/Pixar animated movie that personifies the emotions within one particular girl and how they affect (rule?) her life. It is quite clever and very amusing.

Two things about this movie really stuck out for me. The first is that Joy was the only positive emotion within the “cast.” The others consisted of Sadness, Fear, Anger, and Disgust. It was always Joy’s job to counter the others, to hold them back, to negotiate with them. It does seem that negatives easily outweigh or outnumber positives in our lives. It is our constant battle – if we choose to take it on – to put on a happy face.

As a Christian, I was particularly fascinated that the producers of “Inside Out” chose Joy and not Happiness for the name and attributes of the character. And I think they actually presented a very Christian perspective in the film – whether they intended to or not. I have learned that happiness is conditional: it depends on the circumstances. Joy does not. One can remain joyful in the most depressing or fearful situations. The character Joy struggles to do just that through the movie.

The other major observation I had was how the plot of “Inside Out” paralleled classic literature: someone starts out happy, loses something, then goes on an adventure to recover that something, encountering interesting/scary characters who may help or hinder the quest. In the study of literature, in fact, it is called The Quest, one of what are considered the 7 basic plotlines. The “something” is almost unimportant, what Hitchcock would call a MacGuffin. “The Wizard of Oz,” “The Odyssey,” and “The Lord of the Rings” are examples of quest tales.

I don’t usually do movie reviews in this blog, but this one definitely caught my attention. Within the promising structure of a classic adventure, “Inside Out” provides an amusing glimpse into the inner world of our emotions and our memories. 

Is Sarcasm Endangered?

“Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but the highest form of intelligence.”

-          Oscar Wilde

What do Oscar Wilde, Mark Twain, Chandler Bing, and Doug Piranha have in common? Maybe a lot of things, but what I have in mind is sarcasm. Sometimes wicked, dripping-with-irony sarcasm. I’m a big fan of sarcasm. And satire. I grew up with Mad magazine, the National Lampoon, and Monty Python.

What’s the difference between sarcasm and satire? Do a Google search, and you will uncover a firestorm of blogs and comments arguing the semantics of these two words. But, I want to focus on sarcasm, which is generally defined as a verbal, off-the-cuff remark directed at an individual.

A study (oh-oh, another study!) performed by and described by Francesca Gino in Scientific American finds that sarcasm actually increases creativity in both the expresser and the recipient.  How does it increase creativity? By engaging abstract thinking, making the brain work harder. Of course, the sarcasm has to be “used with care and in moderation,” and is best between individuals where trust has been established.

But, in our thin-skinned, easily-offended culture, is sarcasm endangered? In a delightful article on Slate entitled “Who Killed Sarcasm?”, Simon Doonan calls for the return of snide, old-fashioned sarcasm. He describes it as “one of the greatest achievements of mankind—or ‘unkind’ as I prefer to call it.” He even points out the importance of sarcasm to child rearing:

Sardonic irony is a critical to health child development as vitamins and tick-checks. Raising your brats on an exclusive diet of sincerity is a recipe for disaster. The current mania of relentless positivity and self-esteem building leaves me convinced that we are in real danger of turning out an entire generation of inspirational speakers.

Sarcasm, satire, wit. We need them. They’re good for us, increasing creativity, sharpening our thinking, helping us think on our feet. Go forth and be sarcastic!

Communication Breakdown

I like “Star Trek.” I don’t think I qualify as a “Trekkie” or a “Trekker.” The fact that I’m not sure what they are called these days is probably sufficient proof. But, I digress. I just watched an episode called “Darmok,” probably for the tenth time. The gist of the story: Captain Picard is thrown into a life-and-death situation with the captain of a starship of an alien race, the Tamarians. The handy-dandy universal translator can’t decipher their unusual language, because Dathon, the other captain - and all Tamarians -  speak only in metaphors. There is a critical breakdown in communication. Of course, this may raise the question of whether or not a race can communicate entirely in metaphors. But, for our purposes, let’s just look at the issue of a verbal communication failure.

Many of us have traveled to other countries. Some anticipate the language barrier by studying the foreign tongue. Some countries are much more accommodating to the language limitations of foreigners. But many of us have had the experience of not being able to communicate our most basic needs to another human being, usually after a long day of travel: Where is the bathroom? Where can I find a place to stay? I need a hospital!

What do we do in these situations? Most of us resort to sign language. But there can even be cultural differences there: nodding means “no” in Turkey, for example. Nonetheless, we seem to manage to get our message across. Most languages have nouns and verbs, and we point and gesture until we communicate some rudimentary message. But, it usually takes considerable time.

All of this made me think of the Tower of Babel, the fascinating story in the book of Genesis (Genesis 11:1-9). God saw how efficiently men could do evil when they all spoke the same language. So He decided to “confuse their language so they do not understand each other.” It worked. They stopped building a tower to the heavens and were scattered throughout the world.  At Pentecost (Acts 2), the reverse occurred: everyone was able to understand the good news that the apostles had to share – each in his own language - and there was unity. Communication is powerful. Language can divide or unify.

Protecting Your Personal Brand

I heard a very good panel discussion the other day. It was focused on crisis management for companies. What does a restaurant chain do when there’s an e-Coli outbreak at their restaurants? How does an oil company control the damage to their reputation when there is an oil spill? What about leaks of legal action by the FBI? The suggestions of the experts and the stories of good and bad examples were fascinating.

But, I got to thinking about personal reputation, personal brand. We all have one, whether we have cultivated it or not. It’s our character, our integrity. And it is invaluable. In this day of social media and instantaneous communication – especially of bad news! – we should probably consider protecting our individual brand just as much as Coca Cola or Target are protecting theirs. This is especially true when potential employers check us out online.

Let’s see if the recommendations of these business crisis experts can apply to our personal crises:

• Preventing damage to your reputation is much easier and less costly than cleaning up after a disaster. Be careful what you share online or in emails. Depending on your exposure, some of those things could come back to haunt you. (This is something we Baby Boomers say to our kids all the time!) You can’t put the genie back into the bottle.

• Plan ahead: consider the possible risks to your brand and do what you can to identify, mitigate, or even eliminate risks in advance.      Wise companies spend time and money listing risks (financial, reputation, compliance, strategic, etc.) and creating a plan to control and respond to things that could hurt them in these areas. Individuals don’t have the same list of risks, but we have one in common: reputation. What could happen to your reputation in your line of work, your personal life, your relationships? How can you head off a problem in one of these areas? What would you do if someone publicly accused you of cheating them or stole your identity? Would you be ready to respond?

• Being proactive and acting on a crisis is always better than waiting or staying silent.
  Being able to respond, calmly and respectfully, to the crisis is important. And doing it quickly is essential. As I said, news really travels fast these days.

• You can’t communicate your way out of a crisis.
  Of course, communicating is important. But having a plan for rectifying the problem is critical. Do you need to apologize? Meet with someone? Change your behavior and show that you have? We know from history that stonewalling and trying to cover up do not work.

So, it looks like the corporate crisis managers do have something to teach us about our individual brand. Consider what you might want to do to prepare.

Baby Talk

My grandson, Harrison, just celebrated his first birthday, and it has been fascinating to watch him develop, physically and mentally. As a communicator, I am most curious about how he acquires language. Of course, there have been thousands of studies on the subject, so I am not going to make any new discoveries here. Suffice it to say that language is a unique and complex human trait.

Language comes from interaction. According to the Linguistic Society of America, “Children who are never spoken to will not acquire language. And the language must be used for interaction with the child; for example, a child who regularly hears language on the TV or radio but nowhere else will not learn to talk.” I find that fascinating. Another strike against using the TV as babysitter. (Of course, it begs the question: who did they test this on?)

“Baby talk” is a unique form of language that adults use with children (and, sometimes, with animals). It seems to be built into us, and it is thought to be designed to lead children on as they learn the structure and sound of the spoken language – just a little ahead of their own development.

There is no shortage of non-verbal communication with babies, either. Harrison often points to something that he wants – a toy, food, his mother. Whether it is accompanied by a sound or not, the meaning is clear. But it doesn’t stop there. It has become increasingly popular in early childhood education to teach children American sign language, the technique often used by the deaf. Some kids take to this remarkably well. And any fears that using sign language or other non-verbal communication will delay actual spoken language acquisition appear to be unfounded. In fact, encouraging any form of communication is a positive thing in language development for children.

One of the constant worries of any new parent is whether a child is developing “normally.” Here, I have a little experience. As the father of six, I can say that no child is normal – that is to say, typical. With all of those genes and cells and environmental inputs, how could you expect any one child to develop in the same way as another? Language is a particular case in point. I know I’m a grandfather, so I can indulge the luxury of not worrying. I’m just going to enjoy the show!

What in the World Is CSAH 12?

This week, I am going to indulge myself with a little rant. But there is a definite lesson in communication here, so please bear with me.

The other day, I was driving down a local road here in Minnesota and came upon an electronic sign reading, “CSAH 12 REPAVING STARTING MAY 23. EXPECT DELAYS. THANKS FOR YOUR PATIENCE.” Clear enough, right? Except I had no idea what CSAH 12 was! I was driving on Noble Parkway. Was it the road to be repaved? Was it the intersecting street? Another street a block up? And what in the world is a CSAH?

When I got home, I googled CSAH and found out that it is a “County State-Aid Highway.” Doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue. A little more research confirmed that CSAH 12 is, indeed, Noble Parkway. Now, unless I’m mistaken, not everyone travelling past that sign is going to go to the trouble of looking this stuff up. And I would imagine that very few would already know what a CSAH is – or that Noble Parkway is number 12. Not very helpful information on a road sign if you have to decode it several hours later at home.

So what went wrong here? Communication has three basic components, and the perpetrators of this useless message fractured all three:

• The Audience: The folks who programmed the sign were likely county employees. Like any subculture, they have their own arcane jargon. But the audience for this message, the average driver, should not be expected to be familiar with this special language. The message writers misjudged their audience. Or worse, they were just arrogant and expected people to know what they know – or the heck with them. (See my April 24^th blog, “Feeling Left Out?”)
• The Message: Like all road signs, this message was meant to be read and understood quickly. But, if people are trying to figure out the first part of the message, they may easily miss the rest of it. The message is confusing and unclear.
• The Call to Action: What did the authorities want drivers to do as a result of the message? Be prepared for delays on the road which was being repaved. But if they weren’t sure what road was being described, how could they be prepared? Fail.

Thanks for letting me rant. With such a transgression of all the rules of communication, I couldn’t resist at least trying to make something good out of it!

Top 5 Reasons Why Blogs List the Top 5 Reasons

Did you ever wonder why so many blogs and Facebook ads and the like have titles like “Top 5 Things to Take on Vacation,” or “10 Most Important Pasta Cooking Tips”? Well, I did a little thinking – not much, actually! – and came up with the following. See if you agree – and if you have additional items:

1. The most obvious reason is to tease you into clicking on the link. Clicks are one of many metrics that website owners use to measure success and charge advertisers.
2. Once you are on their site, many have ads that you might click on. If they expect you to click on “next” for each of the following items in the list, then you are exposed to that many more ads. Sometimes, the shrewder sites will disguise and ad link as the “Next” button, so you’ll get to an advertiser’s site, even if you had no such intention.
3. These numbered lists do give you some expectation of the time commitment to read the information when you get there.
4. If you actually get some value from the list, you may choose to bookmark the website and come back again in the future. That’s a bit more long-term thinking than trying to trick you into clicking on something!
5. There is no number 5. Really. But I’m open to suggestions! (What would you think if those other lists short-changed you?)

So, when it comes right down to it, these lists – and teases like “When he told her he was unhappy, this is the last thing he was expecting to hear!” – are just trying to get your attention, to divert you from what you may have been intending. As we all know, the clamor to get you to look at a particular site, ad, news story, video, etc. is intense. These techniques, like all the others before them, will be replaced when they stop working by new or more sophisticated approaches. Stay alert so you aren’t taken in!

What Is It About Texting?

I’d like to talk about texting this week. I don’t mean the dangers of texting while driving or the humorous things that auto-correct does to the texts we write. I want to address texting as a communication medium. For it is a unique creature – in many ways unlike talking or calling or emailing or letter writing, etc. Interestingly, its closest communication relative may be the telegraph.

Texting has only been with us for about 25 years, but, to state the obvious, it is ubiquitous. Is it replacing other forms of communication? My millennial daughter and I had a long chat – via text – and I asked her about it. She said, “Talking on the phone is a dying art... I feel like they’re [phone calls] becoming like writing letters.” (See my blog about writing letters!)

So, what is it about texting?

Some of the pros: When you write a text, you have time to think - to compose- rather than thinking on your feet like you have to do on a phone call. You can send the text now, and the recipient can wait for a convenient time to reply. You can share photos and much more than just text now. You can carry on text conversations with multiple people much more easily than setting up a conference call.

But, there are cons: Texting may be prone to more errors than other media. Like email, it is difficult to interpret tone – or to misinterpret it. It takes people out of the present and focuses their attention elsewhere. And need I mention the distraction that texting causes?

As a communication person, I think the definitive thing about texting is that it is an asynchronous form of communication. Essentially, that just means “not live.” Media like live TV and radio, phone calls, and the theatre are all synchronous – they're happening in real time. Letters, email, voicemail, movies – these are all asynchronous. Stored, not immediate. When thought of this way, texting definitely fits that last group.

Interestingly, though, with the evolution of mobile technology, we will see changes to, and eventually the eclipse of texting. Voice, vision and touch inputs and outputs, artificial intelligence, even implants, will change the whole ballgame – and probably very soon. For us boomers, we might take some satisfaction in knowing that our kids’ children may someday say to their parents, “What’s texting?”   

The Case for Clean Language

There was a time when clean language was the norm and swearing was unusual. Boy, how the tables have turned! Nowadays, the words that would have gotten kids’ mouths washed out with soap or given ladies “the vapors” are commonplace in popular media, the workplace, and in our homes. Frankly, I don’t like it.

Now, I’m certainly no prude. I have definitely used profanity more times than I’d care to admit. And I’m not taking a religious or biblical view of it, either. There are many interpretations and controversies lying in wait there. But I do bemoan the effect the decline of language has had on our culture. The English language (and, I’d daresay, all others) has sufficient words available to describe anger, frustration, hyperbole, and so forth without resorting to “coarse language.”  

The great wits like George Bernard Shaw, Winston Churchill, and Oscar Wilde were able to create scathing insults without resorting to unacceptable terminology. Being adept at using the F word as a noun, verb, adjective, and an adverb does not really impress one’s audience with his or her command of the language! And, speaking of “his or her,” there is little differentiation between the sexes in the use of bad language, either.

This decline did not happen overnight, of course. Over the years, the line of acceptable language has moved almost imperceptibly. There were some major leaps, such as George Carlin’s “7 Dirty Words.” But, for most of us, we just heard and said more of the stuff that was formerly forbidden. Location used to matter: we could say certain things in the locker room but not at the dance. Those lines have been erased, as well.

Is there a way to put the genie back into the bottle and clean up our language? It’s a very tall order, but we each have the willpower to clean up our own act if we choose. Why not give it a try? Make an effort for a day, then a week, to avoid swearing. It could become a habit. You might have to become more creative in your use of the language. And you’ll stand out. Even if some may mock you, I’d be pretty sure they’ll secretly admire you.

Feeling Left Out?

Have you been in a conversation where others used jargon or acronyms, but you had no idea what they were talking about? Were you too embarrassed to ask? Did you prefer to remain ignorant? I’ve experienced this from childhood to adulthood, and the feeling is no less pleasant today. Kids, being kids, tend to be more obvious about pointing out an unfortunate peer’s lack of knowledge.

When I was in about 5^th grade, a new term phrase entered my world: “make out.” (To kiss and hug passionately. It may mean more now, but it was relatively tame back then!) At recess one day, I innocently inquired of a classmate about this strange idiom’s meaning. She wasted no time informing the rest of the class of my ignorance in the loudest way possible. I vowed then and there to never be put in that situation again. Of course, there was no internet then, so my research had to be a bit more involved, but I found out what I needed through trusted sources.

Unfortunately, this happens with grownups, too. Esoteric terminology is used by some people the same way those fifth-graders did: to hurt others, or, at least, to feel superior to them. The clique, the in crowd, the private club – these and many more human groupings seem to thrive on the separateness their language creates. This kind of thing can lead to an attitude towards “others” that makes it easier to slip into hate.

Sometimes, speakers may merely be unaware of the listener’s ignorance. After a long time of speaking to others with a similar foundation in their area of expertise, they may forget that there are plenty of folks without that knowledge. Then, jargon becomes a straightforward barrier to communication. If the listener is confident enough to admit his or her ignorance – and the speaker is considerate – then some explanation and definition will probably take place. In group settings, it is beholden on the speaker(s) to make sure the whole audience is on the same page.

So, what is the bottom line?

1.  Don’t tolerate the use of language solely to separate your group from others and prove your superiority. Of course, you sometimes need your own language to share knowledge about a craft like quilting or a hobby like coin collecting. But don’t use it as a bludgeon.
2. If you are communicating with people who may not know some of your terminology, be careful to include definitions or explanations – in a glossary or within the text of your speech or article.
3. Never embarrass someone who is not as fully versed in the jargon as you are. Consider the Golden Rule, and do what you would hope someone else would do for you in a similar situation.

The Death of Journalism? - Part 2

Last week, I talked about the changes forced on the profession of journalism. I focused on the “external” factors of limited time, limited staff, and the 24-hour news cycle.

Now it’s time to take a hard look at the journalists, themselves. When I worked in TV news, as a film and video editor and producer, one of the high expectations placed on journalists was objectivity. I learned, however, that there really is no such thing. No human being can be truly unbiased. When you work in a place – and a profession – where most of your peers hold the same world view, subjectivity becomes invisible. In other words, when everyone wears the same “rose-colored glasses,” opinion and truth can become synonyms.

Don’t get me wrong: a good journalist works to overcome this bias - if he or she is aware of it. The expansion of electronic news sources over the past few decades has not heralded an increase of objectivity. Instead, news outlets representing one political stripe crop up to counteract the biases that they see in other news organizations. Fox News is a classic example, created to offset the liberal views of the “mainstream media.” TV news viewers can pick the news that makes them feel good; to support their own biases, rather than to be informed. Like many conservatives, I don’t consider Fox News “fair and balanced.” Rather, I see and hear news that is presented from a conservative perspective. As Jeff Sorensen says in his Huffpost Detroit blog, “Confirmation bias blinds people to the bias because it supports their point of view.” It’s nice if you want to say “See, I told you!” But that is not helpful if you want to be an informed citizen or carry on a reasoned debate.

At one time, internalized standards like honesty and integrity were among the values for which journalists strove. Of course, some still do. But the temptations and the pressures of time and money make it very difficult. Our culture, having become unmoored from commonly-held Judeo-Christian values, has a difficult time expecting or enforcing those standards. Consequently, journalism, as a calling, is endangered - if it isn’t dead already.

The Death of Journalism?

“I think it would be fun to run a newspaper.”

                               - Charles Foster Kane in “Citizen Kane”

Nobody is having much fun running a newspaper today. We all have heard the stories of small newspapers folding, bigger newspapers being consolidated, and the largest newspapers struggling for readership in this day of electronic media.  But is there a much larger death to consider: that of the craft of journalism, itself?

Journalism has always included an element of interpretation; of adding the experience and background – plus the research – of a journalist to the mere facts of a news story.  But, with 24-hour news, the viewer is being asked to do the interpretation – without benefit of any of these. 

The first time this really came to my attention was, of all things, during the 1989 World Series. Shortly before game 3 was to begin in San Francisco, the area was hit by a magnitude 6.9 earthquake. The play-by-play announcers were suddenly thrown into the role of reporting breaking news. When a fire broke out on the horizon, one commentator speculated on the location. He was wrong – by miles. But the word went out on national television, and panicked relatives flooded phone lines to find out if loved ones in that area were okay. By the time the error had been corrected, the damage was already done.

Since that time, there has been live coverage of car chases, SWAT operations, terrorist attacks, and may other such events, where the announcers and the viewing public were put in the position of trying to figure out the who, what, when, where, and why together. This is not journalism. It’s really not even reporting.

We are talking about a profession that has been forced to change with the times; a profession that is having a very hard time doing it. Newsroom staffs are being decimated. Time is the master, and quality suffers. In 2012, the Pew Research Center (at that time known as the Project for Excellence in Journalism) estimated that the median length of a local TV news story was 41 seconds. And that was for stories with video. The median “reader” was 22 seconds! Today, obituaries for journalism come from all political sides, conservative and liberal, alike.

And I’m not talking about honesty and objectivity. Not yet. (I’ll get to that next week.)

Stand Tall

I just finished Amy Cuddy’s book, Presence. It is an excellent follow up to her TED talk, given in 2012, which has now had almost 33 million views. If you haven’t seen the video, you should stop what you’re doing and watch it right now. For many people, the video has been life-changing. It is listed on the TED website as one of the 11 must-see talks.

We all know that confidence is the secret weapon in many situations: a job interview, giving a speech, playing a sport, asking for a raise, performing a solo. But, as well-prepared or well-trained as we may be, our confidence often leaves us. Wouldn’t it be great if we could fake it? I mean, create confidence out of nothing? Cuddy’s research suggests – no, proves – that certain body postures, like the Wonder Woman pose, actually affect the testosterone and cortisol levels in our brains. And these changes can give us confidence even when we don’t feel it.

Try it. Find a place to get away from people just before your next speech or interview. Stand tall and wide for two minutes. Yeah, you’ll feel kind of stupid. But that doesn’t matter. You’ll be surprised how it can help your confidence and, even, your success. We’re not talking about being someone or something you actually are not. We are talking about getting stuff out of the way of the real you. It is being present.

Presence goes into much more detail about the rigorous and wide-ranging research performed by Cuddy and many other social psychologists around the world. Cuddy also reveals a great deal about her difficult­­ life and the unlikely story of how she got to be an authority on confidence. There are more postures to try, ones to avoid, inspiring success stories, and encouragement to “nudge” ourselves to improvement. As Cuddy says, “Don’t fake it until you make it. Fake it until you BECOME it.”

Short and Sweet

That most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do.

-          Thomas Jefferson

This past week, Twitter made it official: after considering increasing the limit to 10,000 characters, tweets will remain at 140 characters or less. You don’t tweet, you say? Well, that’s not really what this blog is about, anyway! But the Twitter decision does point to a useful subject: brevity.

Now, just keeping it short does not make it good. Twitter is also the perfect demonstration of that. Keeping communication concise is a good idea, no matter the medium. But getting the message across is always the challenge, no matter what you are doing. In this day of the shortened attention span and relentless distractions, it’s important to get to the point. I realize that writing about brevity is dangerous, too. So, why am I rambling on? Here are six reasons brevity is the best policy:

1. People will only read or listen for so long before their minds wander or something better comes along.
2. The great truths are simple. The more profound the concept, the more likely it can be distilled down to just a few words. Proverbs work this way. “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush” says volumes in 11 words.
3. We all know that shorter is better. It’s harder to accomplish, and lazy writers will waste words. Good writing is mercilessly edited.
4. We are no longer writing essays that have a required length. Most of us are not earning a grade with our writing any more, and quantity does not equal quality.
5. When we write simply, we avoid the risk of sounding like we don’t really know what we’re talking about.
6. We are saying to the reader/listener, “I know your time is valuable. I won’t waste it.”

Here is a sampling of some very good blogs/articles on the subject with excellent examples.

http://have-a-word.com/why-brevity-is-important/

http://lifehacker.com/5909543/write-less-say-more-the-power-of-brevity

http://copymatter.com/embracing-brevity/

Now, go forth and be brief!

Silence Is... Rare!

Years ago, I went to the Ontario Science Centre and visited the Quiet Room. It was a place which blocked out virtually all outside noise. In fact, once you made your way through the maze of baffles and sound-absorbing materials, the only sound you heard was the blood pumping through your ears! It was almost too quiet! In fact, quite a few people exited as fast as they could; it was so disturbing for them.

What happens when things get quiet around you? Do you turn on the TV or music to fill the void? Do you find it uncomfortable? Intuitively, I think most of us really understand that silence is a threatened commodity. Finland developed their newest marketing theme to take advantage of something that most felt was a disadvantage: it’s really quiet there. The theme is “Silence, Please.”  Visitfinland.com is putting its money on silence as a destination, as a luxury.

We are bombarded with sound continuously. Someone even coined the term “noise pollution” back in the 60s. At the same time, we seek out our own private sanctuaries, through noise-cancelling headphones or silent retreats or libraries. Much research has been done into sounds – of all kinds – and their effects on the brain. But only by accident have the researchers realized that the silence between the sounds can be equally - even more - valuable. When we are focused on specific sounds, our brains slow down the background scanning that goes on all the time. When we get into a quiet place, we can reflect on our experiences, develop our personalities, solve problems. One study showed that the brain creates more neurons during silence than when stimulated by sensory inputs.

Psychologists are concerned about our noisy culture and, in particular, its impact on young people. The constant input provided by smart phones, music, conversation (in-person, remote, or virtual), and life in general keep adolescents from the self-reflection that is so essential for development of identity and the discovery of meaning.  In her book, Alone Together, and a TED Talk, MIT prof Sherry Turkle points out that, ironically, we connect to avoid feeling alone; but we need to be alone in order to really connect.

Does silence scare you? Do you crave it? Either way, we should all make the effort to find some time and someplace where we really can turn off the stimulation and spend time with our thoughts. As the old saying goes, “Sometimes I sits and thinks, and sometimes I just sits.” It’s all good!

"Take A Letter"? - NO! - Give A Letter! - Part 2

Last week, I wrote about the fact that I had written a letter to my daughter – something I hadn’t done for a painfully long time. This week, I continue making the case for the return of the lost art of letter writing.

The internet is chock full of lists of the wonderful things about letters. Here are a few selected items:

• They can share emotions and deep thoughts.           
• They have a permanence and can be re-read and treasured.
• They are thought-out and not rushed; they are more of an event and more of a struggle than an email.
• They give the gift of time – it takes time to write them and it gives the recipient the freedom to decide if, when and how to reply.
• They build relationships.
• They have impact; they show somebody cares.
• They can’t be sent by accident!

When I began to think about it, I realized that I’ve experienced many of these things. I keep cherished letters from my long-deceased father in a special place. I discovered unknown relatives in England by blindly replying to a letter sent by my great-great uncle to my grandmother. I had no idea if anyone at that address knew of the family, but they did. And an entirely new branch on the family tree was revealed to us.

In her blog, “Notes From a Dreamer,” Bobbie Ann Pimm writes,

“I long to receive a three page, heart-rending, soppy letter, filled with words carefully chosen and eternal.”

I add my voice to the growing throng: let’s rediscover the art of letter writing. Make a vow to write a real, handwritten letter. There is someone who would love to get a letter from you.

"Take A Letter"? - NO! - Give A Letter!

I wrote a letter to my daughter the other day. Really. I mean pen and paper and envelope and stamp. I was almost surprised I remembered how to do it. It’s something I am trying to do more often. My first letter was one I enclosed with a little gift after she moved to New York City for a new job. I wanted to encourage her in the transition. I had to send the package anyway, and it was a little naked without a note of some kind.

Then I realized just how different a letter is from an email. Or a text. Or a phone call. Or anything else. So I did what any good American would do: I googled it. It turns out lots of people have come to the same realization that I did. Many of them much sooner and much more completely than me. Letter writing is special in many ways.

The U.S. Postal Service estimates that the average American home receives only one personal letter about every two months. This is obviously a far cry from 100 years ago, when the personal letter was the most common form of distant communication. But have we really advanced the art of communication with our free tools of instantaneous and abbreviated communication?

In his book, To the Letter: A Celebration of the Lost Art of Letter Writing, Simon Garfield writes,

For my children, with Facebook and smartphones, emailing is just too much trouble. In other words, our current ways may already be history. What if we find that our standard substitute for letter-writing is but a temporary and illusory bridge to not writing at all?

Let’s hope we can escape that depressing prophecy. Garfield goes on to describe the many, many benefits of a good, old-fashioned handwritten letter.

Catherine Field, in “The Fading Art of Letter Writing,” in the New York Times, said,

A good handwritten letter is a creative act, and not because it is a visual and tactile pleasure. It is a deliberate act of exposure, a form of vulnerability, because handwriting opens a window on the soul in a way that cyber communication can never do. You savor their arrival and later take care to place them in a box for safe keeping.

Next week, I’ll continue this case for letter writing. 

The Lost Art of Debate?

I love a good debate. I mean a proper, logical argument with rules. With a winner and a loser. I’ve heard a lot lately bemoaning the loss of the art of debate and persuasion. When I was in school, we had a debating team. It was actually called “forensics.” Not the crime-solving stuff, although it is related. Actually, the term hails back to the Greeks, who held debating contests. They felt proper training in the art of argument was essential to democracy.

Then there’s Facebook. Nobody is persuaded. Nobody changes his mind. Why? I think there are a lot of reasons. Here are a few:

1.  There are no ground rules. Participants in a proper debate agree to follow certain basic rules like no personal attacks, time limits, etc.
2. It’s not face-to-face. A basic rule of law is that you have the right to face your accuser. Unless you can look your adversary in the eye, the discussion can degenerate into a tie-for-tat exercise that generates more heat than light.
3. The medium is inadequate. Arguing in short bursts separated by gaps of time and other activity never resolves anything.
4. It’s easy to escape. You can quit anytime. An argument you walk away is an argument lost.
5. Most positions involve regurgitating other people’s positions. It usually amounts to “preaching to the choir.”

We should just leave Facebook for what it does well: sharing family photos and events, jokes, music. Keep the politics off. Instead, hone your debating skills. Sharpen your logic and critical thinking skills. And get to a coffee shop or a bar and have a good argument!

Your Call Is Important To Us...?

I was on hold today, for what seemed like an eternity. What is the reason for the general decrease in the quality of phone customer service queues? Population increase? Cost savings? Complete lack of empathy? All of the above?

I’ll leave it to the business and psychology experts to take up that debate. In fact, much has been and continues to be written on the subject. What I have been pondering is the communication aspect of the whole process. I daresay that most of us would rather speak to a human than a machine. And most of us probably have a problem that is more complicated than those menu choices – even at the fourth level down. It’s not all about time and impatience – although those are more pressing than ever in our culture today.

No, we need confirmation and understanding. Resolution and closure. None of that is very satisfying – if it is even possible – with recordings and voice capture. All of this presupposes at least two things: 1) that the human on the other end is competent, and 2) that he or she has the authority to help you, not read through a script until you reach an impasse and then pass you along to the next person. Those are two huge hurdles.

So much lip service is spent these days on “excellent customer service,” but it has become an endangered species. A few organizations pride themselves on connecting you to a live person straight away. But you are usually paying for that through special fees. Some offer calls back if the queue is too long. But the bottom line is the bottom line. Trained humans are expensive. Online chat is one solution offered by many. But it’s pretty clear that this usually allows the agents to multi-task with several chats at once – what else could cause those long pauses? At least it is a form of human-to-human interaction.

My problem is that I am a complainer from way back. And I’m always sure that my issue is much more complex than the average. I have this foolish notion that, if I can just get to a real person, my logic and persuasive argument will win the day. What a pipe dream!

It will be interesting to see if this problem gets addressed through further technology, or if we will just become accustomed to it, like we have so many other things. Remember the boiling frog?

Try Losing Your Phone

I lost my phone the other day. It was a revealing event. I realized how dependent I had gotten on that little device. My thoughts even turned to the subject of idolatry! Should something be allowed to take such a central place in one’s life?

Much has been, and continues to be written on the subject of our cell phones and the impact they have on our lives and our society. We really are carrying out a huge social experiment, the outcome of which may be dire, indeed.

Renny Gleeson, a technology and culture pundit from Portland, Oregon, speaks of a “culture of availability,” and a conflicting obligation to be available. One of the memes he showed in a recent TED Talk had a man, apparently standing in his child’s daycare center, texting amidst the bustle. The caption: “What’s happening here, now, isn’t as important to me as what could be happening anywhere else.” Gleeson’s plea: “Let’s make technologies that make people more human, and not less.”

Sherry Turkle, a prof at MIT, takes an even more depressing view. She talks of the new skill of maintaining eye contact while texting, people texting at funerals – in short, being “Alone Together” (the title of her book). She points out that conversation takes place in real time, and we can’t control what we want to say. In online communication, we can “re-touch” our words, making ourselves sound better. This “flight from conversation” compromises our capacity for self-reflection. Ironically, we connect to avoid feeling alone; we need to be alone in order to really connect.

She does sound an optimistic note, however. She says we are early in our love affair with technology. We need to consider how we build it, how we use it. Start thinking of solitude as a good thing. Set aside places and times when conversation is sacrosanct.

Try losing your phone sometime. It can be very instructive!

Tribal Knowledge

I have worked at several places where much knowledge was “tribal knowledge.” In the Six Sigma discipline, it is defined as knowledge that is known by some but not documented. In many instances, it is essential to production of a quality product. Some people see this as “job security.” Others say, half joking, “What happens if I get hit by a beer truck?”

Sometimes tribal knowledge is incorrect. Sometimes it contradicts the actions of other departments or management. Most often, however, it involves stuff that one or more people do regularly, but have never committed to writing.

In a 2013 article in Training magazine, “Unlocking Tribal Knowledge to Transform Your Organization,” Alfedo Zangara discusses the problem. “To date, tapping into this knowledge has been difficult and costly. But the desire to make it easier to access and organize this information for broader benefit is inspiring fresh thinking.” He goes on to outline his framework for correcting the issue in an organization.

Solutions? There are plenty of consultants who make a living helping companies get this information out of people’s heads and into writing, training programs, knowledge bases, and so on. Zangara’s method is just one of many these days.

Whatever approach is chosen, it comes down to hard work – work that doesn’t relate directly to the organization’s day-to-day activities. It is what Steven Covey would call a “Quadrant 2” activity: something that is important but not urgent. It also requires change, something we all know is difficult for us humans.

In these days of hypersensitivity to risk, tribal knowledge could be one of the biggest risks facing your organization. Better start doing something about it!

Confessions of a Grammar Nazi

I’m a recovering Grammar Nazi. I have been having second thoughts about getting worked up about people’s misuse of the English language. Now, I’m not saying that I don’t value clarity and precision in language, but I am re-educating myself about the importance of these things, particularly in spoken or informal communication.

I’m turning over a new leaf. I have determined not to get angry when someone on Facebook uses “your” instead of “you’re,” says “alumni” instead of “alumnus,” misspells something, or says “me and Michelle” instead of “Michelle and I.” Putting aside what some of these things might say about the writer or speaker, it’s really not worth getting an ulcer over. My new perspective: does the intended message get delivered? If everyone understands what’s being said, isn’t that the real point?

Now, in written communication – particularly formal writing – I remain a stickler. Misspelled words and bad grammar say something about the author. And bosses, potential employers and other readers will definitely make judgements based on the quality of a person’s writing. Bad writing on a résumé or in a white paper, for example, is inexcusable.

I recently watched a TED Talk by Erin McKean entitled “Go Ahead, Make Up New Words!” Ms. McKean is a lexicographer (a dictionary writer), and she was addressing a youth audience. Her message was that new words have been added to our language for centuries. Why should that stop? Stealing words from other languages (“Feng shui”), using acronyms as words (“NASA”), back formation (“edit” derived from “editor”) – all of these are valid.

New words grab people’s attention, they allow us to express ourselves more precisely. There are no limits. If I find myself bristling when someone says “architecting” (a functional shift – a noun used as a verb), I need to ask myself, “Did everyone in that business setting understand what the speaker was saying?” That needs to be my new approach.

It’s already helping my stress level!

Use Your Words!

We’ve all heard it. “Studies show” that 93% of all spoken communication is non-verbal. But does that sound reasonable? That means that only 7% of our communication is our words. The remaining 93% is made up of body language (55%) and tone of voice (38%). We’ve bought this nonsense for years. People who should know better have accepted this hook, line and sinker: professors, public speakers, counselors. People whose careers are dependent on the spoken word.

I’m always a little wary of these all-knowing studies – especially ones that contradict common sense. It turns out there is good reason for skepticism. Albert Mehrabian performed the studies – two of them – at UCLA in 1967. In a 2009 blog on speakingaboutpresenting.com, Olivia Mitchell summarized the studies:

Mehrabian’s studies asked participants to judge the feelings of a speaker by listening to a recording of a single word spoken in different tones of voice. In the first study, the participants had to rate the feelings of the speaker after listening to each of nine different words. The words spoken were often inconsistent with the tone of voice used. For example, the word ‘brute’ spoken in a positive tone. Each time they had to make a rating just on the single word they had listened to.

In the second study, only one word was used. It was chosen to be as neutral as possible: the word was ‘maybe.’ They listened to a recording of the word ‘maybe’ said in different tones and at the same time were shown photos of different facial expressions.

The experiments were never intended to measure how well the listeners understood what the speaker was trying to communicate.

Since the original studies, there have been numerous critiques of the methodology of the research and its application to real world situations. Unfortunately, the research has continued to be misused by so-called public speaking and presentation experts.

Even Professor Mehrabian has said that his findings have been wrongly applied. In 2002, he stated, “I am obviously uncomfortable about misquotes of my work. From the very beginning I have tried to give people the correct limitations of my findings. Unfortunately, the field of self-styled ‘corporate image consultants’ or ‘leadership consultants’ has numerous practitioners with very little psychological expertise.”

Most damning, perhaps, are these pointed questions posed to Mehrebian study misusers by Max Atkinson on his blog (maxatkinson.blogspot.com):

1. How come it's much easier to have a conversation with a blind person than with someone who's completely deaf?
2. How come we can have perfectly good conversations in the dark?
3. How come telephones and radio have been such spectacular successes?
4. How come we have to work so hard to learn foreign languages?

Simply put, body language and tone of voice are important in any spoken communication, of course. But they don’t beat well-chosen and well-presented words. Use your words!

A Failure to Communicate

A Failure to Communicate

What we’ve got here is a failure to communicate.

         – Captain, Cool Hand Luke

The single biggest problem in communication

is the illusion that it has taken place.

           - George Bernard Shaw