Let's Discuss Effective Communication

  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
6 years 3 weeks ago #317902 by

Serenity wrote: A lot of people here are not native english speakers, are they to be excluded from participating because their grammar and punctuation are not up to scratch? Surely that is not what is meant by discussing effective communication , lot of the above mentioned preferences are exclusive and i think the idea is for communication to be inclusive..

So what can you do so someone you talk to feels more understood and how can you get your message across on the level of the person you are adressing?


Thank you.

As for your questions, I try to repeat back in my own words what I have received from them. Then trying to maintain the connection to how they speak I'll ask questions or offer my own insight.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
6 years 3 weeks ago - 6 years 3 weeks ago #317908 by Cyan Sarden
Basics

Successful / effective communication is easy to define (to bring your point across in a way that the target audience understands) but very hard to achieve, especially on a mixed medium (hot and cold) such as text-based internet. Text is a low-density medium in that it solely targets the sense of vision and leaves the other senses out. This poses a problem to those who attempt to communicate: the medium is stripped of the scaffolding that can be held on to in direct person-to-person communication. And leads to constant interpretation of what‘s been written, which makes problems almost unavoidable.

Foreign speakers vs. native speakers

The ability to succesfully communicate hugely differs from person to person. Some people here mentioned native speakers vs. non-native speakers. This is generally not a criterium at all. A native speaker can have an incredibly low ability to communicate while a non-native speaker can be excellent at it. While the language level really helps, it‘s rarely a main criterium after certain degree of proficiency has been reached. As a matter of fact, one could generally state that native speakers who have had no training in communication are handicapped in this department compared to non-native speakers. The reason for this is that learning a foreign language usually and very specifically evolves around successful communication. E.g training to communicate successfully with limited vocabulary. Foreign learners are also often better spellers than native speakers and have higher grammar correctness - as none of this matters a lot when it comes to communicate orally - which is the main means of communication among native speakers.


How to communicate successfully

1. Know your own ability. Communicate that ability.

If you have a communication deficiency, which can have a huge variety of reasons (ADHD, autism, anxiety issues, low level of schooling etc. etc.) and you know about it, it‘s essential that the communication partner knows this and can adapt accordingly. This raises the chances for successful communication almost instantaneously. Also, if you know you‘re unable to communicate in written language, you can either take steps to improve that (by taking courses) or avoid it and look for other means.

2. If in doubt, ask questions

Especially when it comes to written language, where large parts of the message consists of personal interpretation, it‘s essential to not just assume, but to ask when something is unclear or sounds odd, insulting or outlandish. This will clarify these things very quickly.


3. Pay attention to what you‘re saying.

Above all, avoid ambiguity. This isn‘t always easy, but can be achieved by simply reading before you hit the „send“ button. Avoid communicating through speech-to-text (e.g. voice texting) unless you can actually read your text before it‘s sent (which isn‘t always possible when a car system such as CarPlay or Android Auto is used). When writing more complex texts, which is often the case here on TotJO: use punctuation, make paragraphs, send you text through a spell checker (e.g. copy-paste it into a word processor that has that and then copy-paste it back once it‘s been checked), as already mentioned by others in this thread.


4. Assume the worst

Assume that other people don‘t completely understand what you wrote. Read the answers to your texts carefully and once you realize that something has been misunderstood, actively and politely re-phrase and try again.

Do not look for happiness outside yourself. The awakened seek happiness inside.
Last edit: 6 years 3 weeks ago by Cyan Sarden.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Locksley, Alexandre Orion, Rex

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
6 years 3 weeks ago #317917 by steamboat28

Rex wrote: I'm also on team formatting and grammar. Give the benefit of the doubt, and don't post snark
Also brevity or include a Tldr
Edit: also try and not include quote chains and break quotes into bite size pieces so you can address the quote point by point


Warning: Spoiler!
The following user(s) said Thank You: Alexandre Orion, Rex

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
6 years 3 weeks ago #317932 by

Rex wrote: break quotes into bite size pieces so you can address the quote point by point


I'm on board with quoting only the relevant part of the post to which you're responding, so if that's what you mean, sure.

It's also possible that you meant something like turning:

Thing one said. Thing two said. Some stuff. Thing three said.


into:

Thing one said.


Refute-y thing one.

Thing two said.


Poke at thing two.

Thing three said.


Beat on thing three.


In my opinion, this has to be used sparingly, if at all. Part of it is a tone thing, more suited to the wider internet than a place of spiritual learning. It can come off as hurling one's words back at them.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
6 years 3 weeks ago #317959 by
Effective communication is best done with presenting an idea and from there is a rinse and repeat of asking questions and getting clarification on the idea. After this is done the other individual(s) input their ideas and it repeats until a conclusion is made. What I notice is that most people do not try to ask questions or care to understand they just input their thoughts and beliefs and don't care about the others. Obviously a good grammar will go a long way but it's best to just keep things simple. Being descriptive, patient, and genuinely caring is what is needed.

I have read Dale Carnegie's "How to win friends and influence people" and it will tell you all you need to know about having proper communication. In addition, it teaches many other parts to influencing people to help you (Jedi mind powers =D). Not very many people understand that leaderships requires good communication. Genuine caring and understanding are other parts that make it important to understanding.

In short communication is a two way street if both parties are not focused or do not care to focus then that is where it breaks. Reading the comments thus far are amazing I enjoy seeing the different POVs of everyone. I wanted to thank all of you for your inputs and letting me read and understand your thoughts. I feel that everyone is clear on what they want to portray. Maybe this could be due to my occupation as a customer service expert but these are my thoughts. Thank you again!

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
6 years 3 weeks ago - 6 years 3 weeks ago #317965 by OB1Shinobi
Im not going ot say that I am perfect at doing this, but the key to "effective" communication, the single most important rule, is to understand what the other person is saying,.lol... so simple.
Few people are truly excellent at expressing their thoughts and feelings and it is easy to dismiss someones real ideas because they dont use the best possible words to convey them. If you understand that we all use the same words in different ways and you actually take it as important that you help the other person to fully explain their own views, even allowing them to modify their ideas as they go, then youve made a connection which will allow real communication to happen. People sense and respect that kind of attentiveness, and if you offer it first, the other person will usually be open to understanding your own views as well, and patient with your efforts to express them.

Setting up a bunch of rules that other people have to follow in order to be worthy of your attention is probably not the best way to go if YOUR goal is to be good at communication. Grammar, spelling, punctuation, how people use quotes, etc. these thing might make posts more or less irritating for you to read (depending on your own temperament) but it isnt really necessary that someone perfectly follow all these rules, if your goal is getting to the heart of what theyre trying to say.

But you should follow them yourself when expressing your own ideas, if you feel they make posts easier to read.

People are complicated.
Last edit: 6 years 3 weeks ago by OB1Shinobi.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Manu, Locksley, Alexandre Orion, , Rex

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
6 years 3 weeks ago #317984 by

Atticus wrote: It's also possible that you meant something like turning:

Thing one said. Thing two said. Some stuff. Thing three said.


into:

Thing one said.

Refute-y thing one.

Thing two said.

Poke at thing two.

Thing three said.

Beat on thing three.

In my opinion, this has to be used sparingly, if at all. Part of it is a tone thing, more suited to the wider internet than a place of spiritual learning. It can come off as hurling one's words back at them.


See the Wikipedia article on Robert Fisk for the slang term for this: fisking.

It can come off as combative, but it can also be very useful if something the person you're replying to wrote is unclear, or if he or she tends to write in overlong paragraphs.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
6 years 3 weeks ago - 6 years 3 weeks ago #317990 by OB1Shinobi

JinhamKlyean wrote:

Atticus wrote: It's also possible that you meant something like turning:

Thing one said. Thing two said. Some stuff. Thing three said.


into:

Thing one said.

Refute-y thing one.

Thing two said.

Poke at thing two.

Thing three said.

Beat on thing three.

In my opinion, this has to be used sparingly, if at all. Part of it is a tone thing, more suited to the wider internet than a place of spiritual learning. It can come off as hurling one's words back at them.


See the Wikipedia article on Robert Fisk for the slang term for this: fisking.

It can come off as combative, but it can also be very useful if something the person you're replying to wrote is unclear, or if he or she tends to write in overlong paragraphs.




The more complicated a discussion becomes, the more likely it is for people to make statements that only make sense in reference to a specific statement made by another person in the discussion. Someitmes conversations involve 30 or more people and span over ten pages. If you make such a statement and you dont supply the exact piece youre responding to in those circumstances, its very easy for people who read your post to miss the relevance and interpret your statement incorrectly.

People are complicated.
Last edit: 6 years 3 weeks ago by OB1Shinobi.
The following user(s) said Thank You: ,

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
6 years 3 weeks ago #318018 by

JinhamKlyean wrote:

Atticus wrote: stuff that can be snipped


See the Wikipedia article on Robert Fisk for the slang term for this: fisking.

It can come off as combative, but it can also be very useful if something the person you're replying to wrote is unclear, or if he or she tends to write in overlong paragraphs.


Awesome, I never knew there was a name for this. Cheers, mate. :) Certainly, this practice can have its place in specific circumstances, as you point out; clarifying statements in context and answering sequential questions are a couple more examples I could think of. But I'm betting we all know someone for whom this is the default refutation mode, and I'm doubling down that seeing it over and over informs your view of that person's intent.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Visitor
  • Visitor
    Public
6 years 3 weeks ago #318022 by
As a Communications student in college I was taught two very important lessons about effective communication.

The first is that in an educational or spiritual setting, both sender and receiver have to have a similar goal if effective communication is to occur, and that goal has to be synthesis. If either participant is not in it for mutual benefit and discovery (learning), the interaction will likely descend into bickering or outright conflict. Effective communication should be about arriving at new ideas after testing the current ones held by both parties. We can question the beliefs and ideas of others, but we must remain open to questioning our own as well. If this is achieved, all parties will walk away from the conversation feeling as though it was beneficial in some way.

The second lesson that we often overlook in communication is that the medium used to convey the message is as important as the message itself. We often have the right message, but use the wrong medium to convey it. A famous example of this effect is the presidential debate between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy. The debate occurred as television was just becoming accessible to the middle class, but many still relied on radio for news. Those who listened on the radio overwhelming believed that Nixon won the debate based on what he said. Those who watched on television tended to side with Kennedy based on what they saw. As a younger, more attractive person, Kennedy played much better on TV than Nixon did. The point being we need to use communication that is most effective for the medium, and visa versa. Since this Temple is an online forum, we need to use communication that is most effective for online text happening over vast distances, across cultures, and in real time. This requires grammatical and contextual accuracy in our message as well as a lot of patience. Since we can't see each other and read visual cues, we need to avoid the more cryptic methods of communicating such as sarcasm and passive aggressive behavior. We need to be direct and clear, and we need to ask questions when another person's message is not so clear.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Moderators: ZerokevlarVerheilenChaotishRabeRiniTavi