Hear Ye, Hear Ye: A Lesson in Communicating

It’s been a long time since I’ve made a post, but I want this first one to be about effectively communicating with one another. I find far too few people know how to do that — and even fewer try. Maybe this will seem like common sense, but so often I find that what’s intuitive is not always put into practice.

What the heck does this issue of communicating have to do with international affairs, you might ask?

Everything.

My favorite tautology is “Nothing changes if nothing changes.” That is, the status quo never changes if no one MAKES the change.

How many misunderstandings in the international arena emerge because no one listens to each other? (Spoiler alert: Too many to name.)

I’ve observed that we shout our ideas at one another, but often we do it for the sake of arguing and trying to make the other person see our point of view. We resort to ad hominem attacks (attacking the other person’s character, rather than the argument), often out of sheer frustration that the other person doesn’t see our side. But those kinds of approaches make it less likely for the other person to WANT to see things your way.

Of course, some people (i.e. “trolls”) do it just to get a rise out of people. It’s often best not to engage them (i.e. “Don’t feed the troll!”) But for most people, I think, it has to do with deep-seated frustration.

This is not true dialogue. If you want things at any level — at home, in your town, in your region, in your country, or around the world — to change, the first step is to listen what other people are saying — AND CONSIDER WHY.

There’s a fantastic book called “Getting to Yes” that talks about negotiating by listening to the other side’s interest rather than position. What’s the difference? “Interest” is what that side wants. “Position” is how they feel they should get what they want. If you listen to what the other side is saying — and people often talk about their interests disguised within their positions — you’ll start to understand what they want. But sometimes, the how is incompatible with your own ideas of how, even if you have the same interest. That’s when you try to understand why they feel their “how” is the best way to get to the “what”.

When you’re talking to people who come from another way of life, whether they are a fellow compatriot or from another country, you need to go in with the understanding that their experience is going to be extremely different from your own. It takes practice learning how to read the “what” under the “how”, because so many people find that the ends justify the means — when they don’t. In fact, the means are often how conflicts arise. Here’s a hypothetical scenario:

Person 1 is in an open office working in a cube. Person 2 in the cube next to Person 1 is playing music very loudly. Person 1 is having difficulty concentrating. Person 1 thinks Person 2 should turn off the music. But Person 2 works better with music.

So, here, notice that what they want is the same: To be able to concentrate better. Unfortunately, the “how” seems to be a source of conflict. If Person 2 turns off their music completely, then Person 1 will be happy, but Person 2 might not be able to work as effectively. If Person 2 keeps the music on, Person 2 is happy, but then Person 1 won’t be able to work as effectively. So then what?

Person 1 should explain to Person 2 that the music is distracting for them. Person 2 then has the option of either turning off the music, lowering it to an acceptable level for both Persons 1 and 2, or putting on headphones. If Person 1 says that Person 2 should shut off the music, that might make Person 2 resentful. But if Person 2 refuses, Person 1 will be unhappy. This would contribute to workplace conflict — the last thing anyone in the workplace needs.

Notice that if Person 1 explains what they need — silence, or at least relative quiet — then Person 2 can figure out the best way to get what they need while accounting for and respecting what Person 1 needs.

Often I find we do not say directly what we want or need (i.e. we do not explicitly state our interests). We often talk about the how instead. An important part of communication is not just listening, but saying what we actually mean. If Person 1 says sharply to Person 2, “Turn off the music!” then they are asserting their position, without considering why Person 2 is listening to music in the first place.

Are you following me here? Do you see what I’m talking about?

I firmly feel that this issue of communication is exactly why the U.S. is having many of the political problems it does today. We have demonized each other without realizing that we want many of the same things — a prosperous country, for one — but don’t agree on how to get to those things we want. And that’s the trouble with ideological conflicts. People are stuck on the “how”. But so few people try to understand why they feel their version of “how” is the best way.

I do want to acknowledge, however, that this is NOT easy. I know it’s not. Not all interests are good for everyone. The lines between the “what” and the “how” are not always clearly drawn. Hitler wanted a pure race, for example, but there are not too many ways to get there other than getting rid of those who aren’t considered “pure”. It took millions of people dying in concentration camps and in combat before he was stopped, because people failed to stop him early enough.

This leads me to an important question: How do we decide what’s harmful for a society? Pretty sure most people would agree that mass violence and genocide are harmful, but what about other things? I’ve heard many people claim that Obamacare is going to ruin the U.S. (Not a sentiment I share, but that’s beside the point.) Others feel that Obamacare is a necessary policy because the healthcare system is broken and something needs to change. Now what?

The fact is that not everyone is always going to be happy with every policy. Activism plays an important role in raising awareness about problems and issues within a system, but ultimately, society has to come to an understanding and a decision on how to approach a given problem.

This is where communication comes in. With effective dialogue, we can get there. But ONLY if we make the effort to make it clear WHAT we want, not just HOW to get there.

Try to keep this in mind when you’re arguing with strangers on the internet about immigration or healthcare or international crises or whatever it may be. If you can get to why they feel the way they do, then who knows, you might see things in a way you never did before.