Why aren't the news agencies screaming about what is going on? Congressman Tom Delay, former House Majority leader, may or may not be innocent of the charges made against him. But, there is one thing we now know that should cause us all to scream. Congressman Delay has managed to confound justice in the United States by saying he didn't want a Democratic supporter to be his judge. Once we allow party affiliation to decide our guilt or innocence we will need two sets of law enforcement, two sets of prisons, and so on.
Justice should be based on law, much like the Republicans claim they want it work. When and if things don't work out the way you believe that they should, then you can appeal. If we can choose our mom to be our judge, of course we'll be found innocent. But, there will always be a question about mom's ability to judge the case based on the facts.
If Tom Delay has the right to choose his judge or their party affiliation then so do 285,000,000 other Americans. Justice is confounded. We don't have justice any more than any other country on earth if you and I can choose those who would judge us. Scream. Scream to everyone who will listen to you.
Friday, November 04, 2005
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
How Can We Build Ourselves
One of the most important forms of communication is interpersonal communication. The more time and energy we spend in this area, the more likely that we will be able to reach the goals we set for ourselves. This is the area of abilities which makes it possible for us to live with the person of our choice and work at the job or our choice. Those are two of the most important considerations for anyone.
First, we must look at ourselves. Who are we and who do they think we are? Look at these areas carefully. Most of us have some idea of who we are. But, we make a simple mistake by assuming that what we think is what others think as well. Other people decide about you and me based on what we say and do. Clearly the most important of those two is what we do. We can clarify what we are doing by providing those around us with explanations of what we are doing and why. What we believe to be perfectly clear can be made much clearer by what we say. Those two must go together.
Second, we must look at others. Who are they and who do they think they are? We look at them and what they do and decide for ourselves how they mean. We often don't ask because there's no real need to have explanations for what we already "know to be true." Often we are wrong, at least in part. We must set aside the time and energy to do what is necessary for us to reach our goals.
Clearly, this is going to involve doing what we do, and then finding a way to talk to those around us so we can adjust their perceptions of what they think we're doing. For a start, this will give us a plan to begin building a future for ourselves that we can be happy about.
First, we must look at ourselves. Who are we and who do they think we are? Look at these areas carefully. Most of us have some idea of who we are. But, we make a simple mistake by assuming that what we think is what others think as well. Other people decide about you and me based on what we say and do. Clearly the most important of those two is what we do. We can clarify what we are doing by providing those around us with explanations of what we are doing and why. What we believe to be perfectly clear can be made much clearer by what we say. Those two must go together.
Second, we must look at others. Who are they and who do they think they are? We look at them and what they do and decide for ourselves how they mean. We often don't ask because there's no real need to have explanations for what we already "know to be true." Often we are wrong, at least in part. We must set aside the time and energy to do what is necessary for us to reach our goals.
Clearly, this is going to involve doing what we do, and then finding a way to talk to those around us so we can adjust their perceptions of what they think we're doing. For a start, this will give us a plan to begin building a future for ourselves that we can be happy about.
Friday, September 30, 2005
How Can We Protect Ourselves?
These are the ground rules: the job of the mass media is to create profits. In order to be able to do that as effectively as possible, they need the largest possible audiences. To create large audiences the media must give audiences what they want.
The need to know what is "really" going on in the world never goes away. So, what must we do in order to find out what is going on in the world so that we can make the best possible decisions.
We must first be aware that media no longer feels the responsibility to provide their audiences with what they need to know. Their responsibility is to assure their owners that they will get a return on their investment.
Each of us must setup our own system to determine what is really going on in the world. Then we must learn and act on what we learn. But, there aren't very many ways you can inform yourself quickly and easily. Here are some ways you can begin to inform yourself.
1. Use the internet. There's a wide range of excellent sources available to choose from and as you search you will be able to add to the list of sources you find.
2. Read widely and regularly. Don't decide what your position is or should be, but instead, decide that you need to know as miuch as possible about "reality" and follow the data where ever it leads.
The need to know what is "really" going on in the world never goes away. So, what must we do in order to find out what is going on in the world so that we can make the best possible decisions.
We must first be aware that media no longer feels the responsibility to provide their audiences with what they need to know. Their responsibility is to assure their owners that they will get a return on their investment.
Each of us must setup our own system to determine what is really going on in the world. Then we must learn and act on what we learn. But, there aren't very many ways you can inform yourself quickly and easily. Here are some ways you can begin to inform yourself.
1. Use the internet. There's a wide range of excellent sources available to choose from and as you search you will be able to add to the list of sources you find.
2. Read widely and regularly. Don't decide what your position is or should be, but instead, decide that you need to know as miuch as possible about "reality" and follow the data where ever it leads.
Friday, September 23, 2005
Now, Where Were We?
(Back in the office now. Now is the time to get back into the discussion of the various elements that make up our lives through communication. Our focus will be on what we can do to improve our communicaitons and through them our lives. While we're improving our lives, we must always keep an eye on what is happening to others. That way, we build a world through communications that not only we want to live in, but others can join us.)
Over the past few weeks it has become increasingly apparent that the information that we use to make decisions that are going to affect us and those we love, isn't always clear or accurate. In fact, there's a fairly large group of people whose sole task is to make us feel good about what they want us to do or think. Our job then is to be certain that we come as close as possible to "reality" so that the decision we make get us closer to our goals, rather than closer to somebody else's goals.
Newspaper less than radio and TV, make their living primarily by acquiring huge readership or listenership. The larger the number, the more you can charge for your product. That means, right out of the blocks we have to protect ourselves from thinking that what we see, hear and read are the heart and soul of news or public affairs. That would be foolish. These folk have to produce large audiences or they're looking for work. That, put simply, means that they will give you what they think you want.
It's true that once in a while, some news gets through because it can't be hidden. That tends to shake the confidence of many of us because we didn't like what we saw. Take the governmental reaction to Hurricane Katrina. Most Americans didn't like what they saw. Even the President of the United States didn't like what he saw. Many Americans had been lulled into a feeling that most conditions are reasonably safe where we live. After the hurricane, many of us had questions.
Why hadn't that sort of thing been discussed in all news agencies before? Why does it take a disaster to show us where we really stand? Now, what are some of the other areas that should be concern to us now? Do we know? Have we thought about it? Where are we getting our information and how reliable is it?
Our concern is not only how skillful and careful we can be when communicating, but what we are communicating and to whom. I really don't want a bunch of highly skilled commnicators running around our communities that really don't have anything to say. Communication has to involve not only those communication skills, but careful thought.
Over the past few weeks it has become increasingly apparent that the information that we use to make decisions that are going to affect us and those we love, isn't always clear or accurate. In fact, there's a fairly large group of people whose sole task is to make us feel good about what they want us to do or think. Our job then is to be certain that we come as close as possible to "reality" so that the decision we make get us closer to our goals, rather than closer to somebody else's goals.
Newspaper less than radio and TV, make their living primarily by acquiring huge readership or listenership. The larger the number, the more you can charge for your product. That means, right out of the blocks we have to protect ourselves from thinking that what we see, hear and read are the heart and soul of news or public affairs. That would be foolish. These folk have to produce large audiences or they're looking for work. That, put simply, means that they will give you what they think you want.
It's true that once in a while, some news gets through because it can't be hidden. That tends to shake the confidence of many of us because we didn't like what we saw. Take the governmental reaction to Hurricane Katrina. Most Americans didn't like what they saw. Even the President of the United States didn't like what he saw. Many Americans had been lulled into a feeling that most conditions are reasonably safe where we live. After the hurricane, many of us had questions.
Why hadn't that sort of thing been discussed in all news agencies before? Why does it take a disaster to show us where we really stand? Now, what are some of the other areas that should be concern to us now? Do we know? Have we thought about it? Where are we getting our information and how reliable is it?
Our concern is not only how skillful and careful we can be when communicating, but what we are communicating and to whom. I really don't want a bunch of highly skilled commnicators running around our communities that really don't have anything to say. Communication has to involve not only those communication skills, but careful thought.
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
An article on the light side of dissidence
The New York Times > New York Region > No Need to Stew: A Few Tips to Cope With Life's Annoyances: "Work slowdowns are methods commonly used by labor unions to apply pressure without actually striking. During the Solidarity movement in Poland, people expressed their disapproval of the government-run news media by taking a walk with their hats on backward at exactly 6 p.m. when the state news program started. When the government noticed the trend, it issued curfews, but people then put their televisions in their windows facing outward so that only the police walking the streets would see the broadcasts."
Login with user name "unfortunately" and password "required."
petty
Login with user name "unfortunately" and password "required."
petty
The Culture of Secrecy
There is a clear need for some kinds of secrecy and our government should provide the safety that secrecy can give us. But, when the culture of secrecy is embedded in the administration we have and you add a war to it, there are huge potential problems.
Rick Blum writes a story which appears in the Provo, Utah Daily Herald. His lead paragraph spells out the problem: "Last year our government spent $ 6.5 billion -- or for every woman, man and child in the United States -- to classify and secure its millions of accumulated secrets. That is 60 percent more than it spent just two years before, and the most it has spent on secrecy for at least the past decade -- not even counting the cost of keeping the CIA's extensive records secret. Sorry, the CIA keeps that figure classified."
Blum's closing paragraph: "Openness, not secrecy, makes our democracy and economy strong. Information in the right hands can produce medical breakthroughs, advance technology, apprehend criminals, and make us safer, healthier and more productive. At best, excessive secrecy is an abuse of the fundamental trust that the public places in government. At worst, it puts uncounted lives and communities at risk, and wastes billions of taxpayers' dollars."
Democracy can and does flourish in a society that is open. One of the things we often say of other countries is that they need to have a free and open discussion of ideas. The culture I would prefer is one of openness.
Rick Blum writes a story which appears in the Provo, Utah Daily Herald. His lead paragraph spells out the problem: "Last year our government spent $ 6.5 billion -- or for every woman, man and child in the United States -- to classify and secure its millions of accumulated secrets. That is 60 percent more than it spent just two years before, and the most it has spent on secrecy for at least the past decade -- not even counting the cost of keeping the CIA's extensive records secret. Sorry, the CIA keeps that figure classified."
Blum's closing paragraph: "Openness, not secrecy, makes our democracy and economy strong. Information in the right hands can produce medical breakthroughs, advance technology, apprehend criminals, and make us safer, healthier and more productive. At best, excessive secrecy is an abuse of the fundamental trust that the public places in government. At worst, it puts uncounted lives and communities at risk, and wastes billions of taxpayers' dollars."
Democracy can and does flourish in a society that is open. One of the things we often say of other countries is that they need to have a free and open discussion of ideas. The culture I would prefer is one of openness.
The Culture of Secrecy
There is a clear need for some kinds of secrecy and our government should provide the safety that secrecy can give us. But, when the culture of secrecy is embedded in the administration we have and you add a war to it, there are huge potential problems.
Rick Blum writes a story which appears in the Provo, Utah Daily Herald. His lead paragraph spells out the problem: "Last year our government spent $ 6.5 billion -- or for every woman, man and child in the United States -- to classify and secure its millions of accumulated secrets. That is 60 percent more than it spent just two years before, and the most it has spent on secrecy for at least the past decade -- not even counting the cost of keeping the CIA's extensive records secret. Sorry, the CIA keeps that figure classified."
Blum's closing paragraph: "Openness, not secrecy, makes our democracy and economy strong. Information in the right hands can produce medical breakthroughs, advance technology, apprehend criminals, and make us safer, healthier and more productive. At best, excessive secrecy is an abuse of the fundamental trust that the public places in government. At worst, it puts uncounted lives and communities at risk, and wastes billions of taxpayers' dollars."
Democracy can and does flourish in a society that is open. One of the things we often say of other countries is that they need to have a free and open discussion of ideas. The culture I would prefer is one of openness.
Rick Blum writes a story which appears in the Provo, Utah Daily Herald. His lead paragraph spells out the problem: "Last year our government spent $ 6.5 billion -- or for every woman, man and child in the United States -- to classify and secure its millions of accumulated secrets. That is 60 percent more than it spent just two years before, and the most it has spent on secrecy for at least the past decade -- not even counting the cost of keeping the CIA's extensive records secret. Sorry, the CIA keeps that figure classified."
Blum's closing paragraph: "Openness, not secrecy, makes our democracy and economy strong. Information in the right hands can produce medical breakthroughs, advance technology, apprehend criminals, and make us safer, healthier and more productive. At best, excessive secrecy is an abuse of the fundamental trust that the public places in government. At worst, it puts uncounted lives and communities at risk, and wastes billions of taxpayers' dollars."
Democracy can and does flourish in a society that is open. One of the things we often say of other countries is that they need to have a free and open discussion of ideas. The culture I would prefer is one of openness.
The Culture of Secrecy
There is a clear need for some kinds of secrecy and our government should provide the safety that secrecy can give us. But, when the culture of secrecy is embedded in the administration we have and you add a war to it, there are huge potential problems.
Rick Blum writes a story which appears in the Provo, Utah Daily Herald. His lead paragraph spells out the problem: "Last year our government spent $ 6.5 billion -- or for every woman, man and child in the United States -- to classify and secure its millions of accumulated secrets. That is 60 percent more than it spent just two years before, and the most it has spent on secrecy for at least the past decade -- not even counting the cost of keeping the CIA's extensive records secret. Sorry, the CIA keeps that figure classified."
Blum's closing paragraph: "Openness, not secrecy, makes our democracy and economy strong. Information in the right hands can produce medical breakthroughs, advance technology, apprehend criminals, and make us safer, healthier and more productive. At best, excessive secrecy is an abuse of the fundamental trust that the public places in government. At worst, it puts uncounted lives and communities at risk, and wastes billions of taxpayers' dollars."
Democracy can and does flourish in a society that is open. One of the things we often say of other countries is that they need to have a free and open discussion of ideas. The culture I would prefer is one of openness.
Rick Blum writes a story which appears in the Provo, Utah Daily Herald. His lead paragraph spells out the problem: "Last year our government spent $ 6.5 billion -- or for every woman, man and child in the United States -- to classify and secure its millions of accumulated secrets. That is 60 percent more than it spent just two years before, and the most it has spent on secrecy for at least the past decade -- not even counting the cost of keeping the CIA's extensive records secret. Sorry, the CIA keeps that figure classified."
Blum's closing paragraph: "Openness, not secrecy, makes our democracy and economy strong. Information in the right hands can produce medical breakthroughs, advance technology, apprehend criminals, and make us safer, healthier and more productive. At best, excessive secrecy is an abuse of the fundamental trust that the public places in government. At worst, it puts uncounted lives and communities at risk, and wastes billions of taxpayers' dollars."
Democracy can and does flourish in a society that is open. One of the things we often say of other countries is that they need to have a free and open discussion of ideas. The culture I would prefer is one of openness.
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
What Culture Do You Favor?
When it comes to secrecy, you might hate it or you might embrace it, depending on your background. Businessmen don't like having everybody know what they're doing and why. They want to be able to keep their "advantage" over the competition and will go to great lengths to protect "their territory." That is their mindset. That's the way they live and few see any reason to change that part of their culture.
When it comes to secrecy, we always must keep in mind that when we vote for any candidate we're voting for more than the positions they proclaim to support. We're voting for their cultural position as well. When you vote for managers, you're voting for folk who fear and mistrust the "press." When managers "sell" ideas and concepts they use the same culture they have used to "sell" processes and products. Its their culture, the way they view the world.
In Krugman's Op/Ed piece today in the New York Times, he points out that "The argument over Social Security privatization isn't about rival views on how to secure the program's future - even the administration admits that private accounts would do nothing to help the system's finances. It's a debate about what kind of society America should be." This is a debate over cultures.
What culture do you favor?
When it comes to secrecy, we always must keep in mind that when we vote for any candidate we're voting for more than the positions they proclaim to support. We're voting for their cultural position as well. When you vote for managers, you're voting for folk who fear and mistrust the "press." When managers "sell" ideas and concepts they use the same culture they have used to "sell" processes and products. Its their culture, the way they view the world.
In Krugman's Op/Ed piece today in the New York Times, he points out that "The argument over Social Security privatization isn't about rival views on how to secure the program's future - even the administration admits that private accounts would do nothing to help the system's finances. It's a debate about what kind of society America should be." This is a debate over cultures.
What culture do you favor?
Monday, March 14, 2005
When Can Secrecy Harm You?
In today’s USATODAY an Op/Ed piece points out a trend that should have everyone’s attention. “In 2004, the government created 16 million new secrets, 75% more than in the year ending in September 2001. Sixteen million! And each new ‘classification decision’ can involve many documents.”
Sunday, March 13, 2005
What To Watchout For
We all want and need dependable news sources, so that we can make the best possible decisions for ourselves, families and communities. Sometimes we overlook obvious indicators of actual and potential problems. For example, as businesses attempt to increase their profits, they do what is necessary to maintain their product, if possible, and to meet the target for profits set by their owners. This is a problem.
News people have to abide by the same rules other businesses do and they too have been under great pressure to increase or at least maintain profits. There's a limit to what businesses can cut and still maintain their product's integrity. As the cost of labor goes up, fewer can be hired and maintained, and that means potential and now probable problems for those who need reliable news.
When a reporter was expected to research and write three news stories a day and because of costs we now have half as many reporters to fill the news the clients are accustomed to receive. The organization either has to become more efficient or the reporters have to produce more stories each day. Unfortunately, there are lots of folk who are willing and able to supply the news. We call some of them public relations agencies. They package stories which often are very good and at times little more than propaganda.
The New York Times article in today's issue reports that we are in the era of prepackaged news which puts your ability to trust the news in deeper jeopardy.
News people have to abide by the same rules other businesses do and they too have been under great pressure to increase or at least maintain profits. There's a limit to what businesses can cut and still maintain their product's integrity. As the cost of labor goes up, fewer can be hired and maintained, and that means potential and now probable problems for those who need reliable news.
When a reporter was expected to research and write three news stories a day and because of costs we now have half as many reporters to fill the news the clients are accustomed to receive. The organization either has to become more efficient or the reporters have to produce more stories each day. Unfortunately, there are lots of folk who are willing and able to supply the news. We call some of them public relations agencies. They package stories which often are very good and at times little more than propaganda.
The New York Times article in today's issue reports that we are in the era of prepackaged news which puts your ability to trust the news in deeper jeopardy.
Monday, January 31, 2005
First Ammendment
Most Americans are proud of the First Amendment of the Constitution. We point to it and reassure everyone on the planet that we have a country that allows free speech. An article in USAToday reminds me that rights are most often lost because we forget the importance of those rights.
Here is the lead paragraph: "One in three U.S. high school students say the press ought to be more restricted, and even more say the government should approve newspaper stories before readers see them, according to a survey being released today." Somewhere along the line, we have a growing number of students that think that the role of the journalist in our society is to support, or at least not criticize those of us who live in our society.
If journalists do not watch and report on those in power, there is little hope that we will remain free. A free press is the backbone of a free society. Without that, we're all in trouble.
Here is the lead paragraph: "One in three U.S. high school students say the press ought to be more restricted, and even more say the government should approve newspaper stories before readers see them, according to a survey being released today." Somewhere along the line, we have a growing number of students that think that the role of the journalist in our society is to support, or at least not criticize those of us who live in our society.
If journalists do not watch and report on those in power, there is little hope that we will remain free. A free press is the backbone of a free society. Without that, we're all in trouble.
Friday, January 21, 2005
Fair And Balanced
We must learn to keep an eye on the media. There job is different from ours. They must make profits and we are trying to inform ourselves. So, when we're out there in media land we must always keep in mind that they are trying to build audience and we are trying to decide if our country is on the right track.
In a recent posting of Media Matters , they investigate the fair and balanced coverage the inauguration received. They describe themselves as "Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit progressive research and information center. . ." Take a look at the "balance" between Republican and Democratic individuals represented during broadcast.
Media Matters reports, "Between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Republican and conservative guests and commentators outnumbered Democrats and progressives 19 to 7 on FOX*, 10 to 1 on CNN (not including a Republican-skewed panel featuring
We must be aware and then take the time necessary to inform ourselves, or our decisions will be made for us with lopsided information.
Thursday, January 20, 2005
How Do We Know?
How do we know the things we know? We experience it for ourselves and should we be unable to do that, we are dependent on other people. Some of those people will be eye witnesses to what happened. They will likely be reporters whose task it is to give us a sense of what happened. In short, mass media has the task of informing us about what is happening when we can't experience it personally.
Over time, the mass media has changed its role. It no longer has a primary task of giving us information that we need, but instead are giving us information that we want. As a consequence we all have to find an adequate replacement for what we need to know.
At times and in certain places there are media that come closer to keeping us informed. An article in the Philadelphia Inquirer gives us some idea that there is a problem. This article relates events that took place during the presidential debates and immediately after. For example: "The candidates understood that their misleading claims would draw less scrutiny than the latest attacks and counterattacks or their speaking and management styles. That's why the Kerry/Edwards campaign seemed to feel no remorse in its constant assertions that the
Our best method to help the media make better decisions is to support them when they do things we require. Don't support them when they don't. They make their profits on the creation and maintenance of large audiences. Keep that in mind.
Sunday, January 16, 2005
When We Think About It
If we really wanted to improve education in the
An article in today's New York Times, How We Learn, set me to thinking that we could do something to improve the chances that American education will improve. Let's figure out how we learn and then model our schools to reflect that.
Friday, January 14, 2005
We're Not All The Same
If we are not now in school, most of us remember certain things about school. One example, when our quizzes or tests were returned, some of us wanted to keep the results to ourselves. Others wanted to know what we got. We always suspected that they had done well and they wanted to let us just how well they had done. Not all of us are good at taking quizzes/tests.
Those who are good are able to put themselves into a group of people who often get higher grades but are not necessarily better able to do things. In this country, it appears that the leadership feels that testing is the best and perhaps the only way to determine whether education is working.
President Bush recently made this statement in a speech concerning education: "If you believe every child in America can learn, then it makes sense to raise the bar," Bush said at an appearance at a suburban Washington high school. "That's called accountability for results," Bush said. The accountability that he is talking about is testing. Some of us will look better than others just because we don't take tests well. That's a painful fact that many of us can remember or are going through right now.
Bush says that his administration would pay for the testing. On the other hand, he said that he would pay for No Child Left Behind and he didn't. This could lead to a wide range of tests given region by region across the country. In any case, do we really want to give those who take tests well an clear advantage over those who can't take tests well.
I have an acquaintance who was on the screening committee for applicants for medical school. His committee felt that the best doctors didn't necessarily come from the group with the highest grades. There are other things out there that we need to look for other than "How well do you perform when taking tests?"
Those who are good are able to put themselves into a group of people who often get higher grades but are not necessarily better able to do things. In this country, it appears that the leadership feels that testing is the best and perhaps the only way to determine whether education is working.
President Bush recently made this statement in a speech concerning education: "If you believe every child in America can learn, then it makes sense to raise the bar," Bush said at an appearance at a suburban Washington high school. "That's called accountability for results," Bush said. The accountability that he is talking about is testing. Some of us will look better than others just because we don't take tests well. That's a painful fact that many of us can remember or are going through right now.
Bush says that his administration would pay for the testing. On the other hand, he said that he would pay for No Child Left Behind and he didn't. This could lead to a wide range of tests given region by region across the country. In any case, do we really want to give those who take tests well an clear advantage over those who can't take tests well.
I have an acquaintance who was on the screening committee for applicants for medical school. His committee felt that the best doctors didn't necessarily come from the group with the highest grades. There are other things out there that we need to look for other than "How well do you perform when taking tests?"
Sunday, January 09, 2005
Time Is Always A Problem
When we're doing things we enjoy time seems to fly by and when we're doing things we don't enjoy time often seems to drag. If you're going to become really good at listening you probably are going to have to change the way you feel about concentrating on what other people are trying to say to you.
It takes time, energy, ability to concentrate and a willingness to set aside your own concerns and problems to consider what someone is trying to say to you. It will also have some unique frustrations. Since very few of us spend a lot of time with people who really listen to what we're saying it often comes as a surprise that someone is actually listening to what you have to say. As a consequence, many of us haven't really thought about what we want others to hear, know and understand. So when someone really listens we find ourselves saying things like, "Well, what I think I mean is. . ." That's bad training for everybody. The listener knows that they have wasted their time and you feel foolish, because you don't even appear to know what you're thinking.
Its a two way street and both of you need to work on listening. When you're listening you're not trying to formulate what you're going to say to the person who is talking. Instead, you're seeking to understand what they are saying, why they are saying it and what they hope to accomplish by saying it. Once you have that under control you are in a better position to think about what they have said. Now your task is to think about what you're going to say, if anything. Sometimes listening is all that is necessary. But, if more is needed, now you have a solid idea of what is necessary. Take your time and respond in a thoughtful and appropriate manner.
That's the stuff friendships are built on, but it doesn't come naturally. It comes with thought, fitness, willingness and practice. Give it a try.
It takes time, energy, ability to concentrate and a willingness to set aside your own concerns and problems to consider what someone is trying to say to you. It will also have some unique frustrations. Since very few of us spend a lot of time with people who really listen to what we're saying it often comes as a surprise that someone is actually listening to what you have to say. As a consequence, many of us haven't really thought about what we want others to hear, know and understand. So when someone really listens we find ourselves saying things like, "Well, what I think I mean is. . ." That's bad training for everybody. The listener knows that they have wasted their time and you feel foolish, because you don't even appear to know what you're thinking.
Its a two way street and both of you need to work on listening. When you're listening you're not trying to formulate what you're going to say to the person who is talking. Instead, you're seeking to understand what they are saying, why they are saying it and what they hope to accomplish by saying it. Once you have that under control you are in a better position to think about what they have said. Now your task is to think about what you're going to say, if anything. Sometimes listening is all that is necessary. But, if more is needed, now you have a solid idea of what is necessary. Take your time and respond in a thoughtful and appropriate manner.
That's the stuff friendships are built on, but it doesn't come naturally. It comes with thought, fitness, willingness and practice. Give it a try.
Thursday, January 06, 2005
Our Culture And Time
Effective communication takes time. Our culture appears to value doing things quickly. "Time is money.” "Don't waste time." There are many more ideas that we are taught by our culture which implies that whatever we're doing it probably would be done better if it is done quickly.
Of course, we can think of things that we don't want to end, things that we enjoy. But, for most things the pressure is in the direction of quicker is better. But, in most cases, effective communication needs time. It is important to take time to listen, for example. We're so impatient that we try to multi-task everything. Drive a car in traffic while talking to someone on our cell phone, often ignoring the person you asked to come along on the trip. We think nothing of that kind of behavior.
To be effective at listening we're going to have to make time. We're also going to have to realize that multi-tasking is dangerous when trying to solve a problem with your boss or mate. You're not wasting time when you take time to listen.
Monday, January 03, 2005
Communication Is Difficult
In some areas we pride ourselves on being different from others. In fact, we try to create a style for ourselves. Some go further and tattoo and pierce themselves which clearly creates a distinctive identity. Probably more important than the distinctions we make between ourselves and others physically are those that are part of us. Those differences that are a result of who are parents are , where we were born and what experiences we've had, are must more important.
Sometimes we're tempted to not listen to others because we know what we would be doing or thinking by just hearing what they are saying. We can't safely think that we know what others are thinking and saying without careful listening. Because we are different in how we mean, we must first determine how "they mean" before we decide we know what they are saying. In our busy world, we just don't take the time to do what is necessary.
Make time to listen. Determine "how they mean" and then consider your response. Without careful listening, we are part of the problem. First, give yourself the chance to know. Then consider who you are, and who they think you are before responding. Things might go better.
Sometimes we're tempted to not listen to others because we know what we would be doing or thinking by just hearing what they are saying. We can't safely think that we know what others are thinking and saying without careful listening. Because we are different in how we mean, we must first determine how "they mean" before we decide we know what they are saying. In our busy world, we just don't take the time to do what is necessary.
Make time to listen. Determine "how they mean" and then consider your response. Without careful listening, we are part of the problem. First, give yourself the chance to know. Then consider who you are, and who they think you are before responding. Things might go better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)