Communication

Post Reply New Topic

I think an important point to make is that for me, the polite and gentle and 'kind' response *is* what I really think! There may be some part of my mind saying "This guy is an idiot", but I know that is not true for me in any sense worth considering. If I tried to be 'honest' by saying "I think you are an idiot", well, it would only be honest for what the egoic part of my mind was saying. Obviously, my ego always tries to bias/colour the situation to make me look better than others in my own mind and hopefully (for my ego) in others. But this part of my mind (I believe) is not the real me, and I would rather give voice to the real me.

Then again, if I spoke directly from the real me about someone, I might say something like, "You are a beautiful, pure, innocent, holy child of God!" But I don't say that in any normal situation because it is foisting my beliefs on the other person to say that. So I would approximate what I would really like to say to make it something that they can accept. This is a normal, practical consideration in any communication.

Conversation is all about the mutually agreed upon direction. It's about opening and closing doors, and guiding subjects (topics) in a gracious, engaging and entertaining way.

I believe that in conversation, as with most interpersonal communication (excepting law and suchlike things) truth is only a part of the picture.

Personally, I don't believe per se in saying white lies to smooth over a situation, but there is usually no need to be abrasive, and if I say something in an abrasive way, the other person is liable to get defensive and from then on not much real communication happens anyway.

But then there is the other very important principle in conversation, which is focus and intent. If the topic and focus of the conversation at the time is on A, but B comes up as part of A, there is no need to pedantically correct B, because that's not the focus. This is true in most normal conversation, especially light conversation. Of course, with friends discussing in depth a 'special topic', it might be mutually helpful to correct B (the not-focussed-on part of the statement. It depends on what you think would be helpful for you and the other person. You see that conversation is also about choice. Choice that defines you or describes you in that moment. 'Truth', of course, is relative to your opinion, and is only part of a conversation. I'm not saying "tell a lie", but rather to consider all the other aspects of the conversation that are going on at the same time.

It may be helpful to point out that for me, I much prefer 'special interest' conversation to small talk. However, interchanges that don't express much if they are read from a page may express a lot more with their non-verbal communication and body language. So though the denotative topic is boring, we still learn much about the other person from all the nonverbal communication that is going on.

And there is such a huge range of communication styles in the NT community, because there is a huge range in the way NT humans think. I think a good place to start with this is the Myers-Briggs system (started by Carl Jung) for different ways of conscious thinking. It's a very powerful, elegant and useful theory. There 'NT' means something completely different (iNtuition-thinking). It's not meant to be misused by putting people in boxes. Of course, the more powerful something is, the more potential it has to be misused. (With that in mind, I'm INFJ, in case you know about it.)

Lastly, *how* you say something is very important. This speaks volumes. It communicates real, important information, and it is often more important than the words themselves.

By the way, when I was a teenager, I remember thinking, "I wish the unwritten social code was written down!" (I'm 36 now.)

Conversation is also about mutual respect. I don't mean respect in the 'earned' sense, but in respecting the other person's feelings, privacy, space, dignity and things like that, not because we think they personally deserve it, but because they are another living creature, and because everything deserves respect.


If I may ask, what do you guys think of some of these ideas?

I really hate people who say "you are this" and "you are that" because I think they are projecting onto me and it is very aggressive. I always believe that a person has to know themselves in order to understand me. My closest friend always says something like, "I dont mean to offend you but sometimes you blah blah" and I know that she is coming from a good place.

I really hate generalizations and I think any generalization closes up people to communication. I guess it all really depends on if you are a bottom up versus a top down thinker. I prefer people give me the specifics and then a generalization to help me better understand what is being said. Some people prefer a general statement and if the other person cares then that person will ask for the specifics.

I sometimes being truthful or blunt is necessary regardless of the consequences. Remember the truth does sometimes hurt. By not saying something which may or may not offend someone you offend that person by not being truthful.

I agree, but I think the OP is trying to say that it is more about how you say it depending on the person. I had a person tell me "You are disgusting" which is very blunt but to me it was offensive and would have been less that way if he said in a more specific way.