Communication in relationships part 3

Every term in my English class I assign my students homework to test my theory that conversions are either predominantly dialectal or dichotomous. I have them each reflect on a recent interaction they have had and tell me, to what degree, was it dialectical or dichotomous. I frame it as a matter of degrees, of course, because it is quite possible for a conversation to start in dialectical fashion, and end up dichotomous or vice versa. (Of course, anyone reading this book should do this assignment as well, at least mentally, for the rest of your life, so you can see for yourself how these dynamics work in real life). These concepts are simple to understand, but just like any skill, can take some time to implement. Though I have also seen many examples of immediate successes. For example, my students usually come back to report on classic arguments with loved ones about where to eat, stubborn roommates who won’t clean up after themselves or who is the best basketball player of all time, and, of course, the terrible power-hungry bosses who won’t listen. Frequently, these stories end in dichotomy and frustration, but sometimes the students come back with stories where, just trying to be more dialectical, it changes the entire dynamic of the conversation. Suddenly, a father listens to his son. A girlfriend gets her boyfriend to admit his fear of flying. Each time I hear these stories I feel like they are small miracles, since old dichotomous scripts can last lifetimes and it is never easy to break old habits and routines. The most memorable example I have to share is the term when I had an older student who had recently been released from prison. He reported to the class that was about to beat his roommate’s ass for disrespecting him on the toilet, but then realized he was being “too dichotomous,” and so decided to be more dialectical and “let him off with a warning.” Of course, we all laughed, as it was a funny example by the way he described it, but at the same time it showed how powerful an awareness of these concepts can be. For all we know, it could have saved his roommate from being murdered on the toilet. If you take nothing else away from this book, just being more aware of what motive is when communicating with others can be life changing. It is honestly homework for all of us, for life.

Listening also means asking questions:

Now that we’ve looked at the difference between dialectical and dichotomous modes of communication, it is important to look deeper at the barriers that will arise when trying to be more dialectical, and how to overcome them. One of the biggest challenges I find is that many people have a hard time just asking questions. I am amazed at how many people I meet who seem simply incapable of talking about anyone but themselves. In fact, an informal litmus test I use when deciding if I want to go further in any relationship with somebody is asking myself: “Is this person capable of asking me a genuine question?” And sadly, the answer is more often than not, a resounding, “No, no, they are not.” The majority of people I meet are very adept at asking one quick polite question because they have heard they are supposed to, but then they go right back to talking about themselves. That is why when I meet somebody who is capable of asking questions and actually listening (who is not a therapist), it is a rare treat. This is the kind of person I want to get to know better, and hang out with.

The ability to ask questions and listen is a vital skill for any kind of lasting relationship whether it is romantic, business or a friendship. I know there are a lot of books that say you should listen to get people to like you, but I don’t ask questions to win friends and influence people or to be a good host. I ask questions because I already know about myself, and I genuinely want to know more about other people, their thoughts, ideas, and dreams. Herein lies a great paradox. Although I pride myself on being a good listener, and somebody who asks questions, I also know people are already prone to talk about themselves, so it can quickly become exhausting to realize that after I ask a question, I am once again locked in a one way conversation where I am a sounding board for another’s person’s narrative. Needless to say, when we are able to have a conversation with somebody who both talks about themselves, and asks questions, it can be a delightful experience. We immediately feel less alone in the universe, and like there are others out there like us. I have personally had this kind of experience with many different kinds of people who wouldn’t seem compatible on the surface, but once you get beneath the superficial, you realize how complex and interesting people can be. I have seen many books on communication that offer up different kinds of scripts to initiate dialogue, but they all sound like cheesy pick up lines to me. I think the best thing you can do is be genuine, and ask them about something that you might find interesting. I can’t tell you what that is because I don’t know you, but I went to a party recently and a guy said he worked in advertising, I asked him how he is using or not using A.I. because it was a genuinely interesting question to me, not because I was trying to follow some pre-formed idea of what I should ask. To be a good conversationalist, you have to be constantly asking yourself, how can I authentically connect with this person, and what human experiences do we share?

Of course, once you ask a question, the next challenge is to try and find a way to relate to what the person is saying so that you don’t just end up saying, “Ok, yeah, uh-huh.” In order to do this well, it can help to do a bit of something known as abstract thinking.

Abstract thinking is the cognitive ability to understand concepts that go from being specific to universal. It means knowing that the blind men and the elephant mean more than just blind men and elephants, but people and the world. So, if you ask somebody what kind of music they like, and they say Opera, instead of thinking in concrete terms that “I hate opera I have nothing in common with this person,” you can think in more abstract terms as Opera embodies not just opera, but music as a whole. Now, you can think, “Oh, they like music, and so do I.” Now, instead of staying in your part of the elephant, you have something in common. You can talk about how music moves you, inspires you, etc. And maybe even ask them some questions about fucking Opera! And they, in turn, having read this book, can ask you more about punk rock or whatever the hell your taste is. This could honestly turn into a fun and interesting dialectic if given the chance.

Another example of this would be if somebody is talking about their job working at McDonalds, and you have never worked at McDonald’s, instead of thinking I have never worked at McDonald’s and have nothing in common with this person, you can think more abstractly: “Have I ever had a boring-ass job that you hated? Now, you might have something in common after all. When you can relate to somebody like this, it not only makes the conversation more interesting, but it comes from a sincere place, rather than a bullshit place of, Oh, how nice. You are creating genuine connection versus superficial small talk that people can smell a mile away.

Naturally, this isn’t going to work all of the time, and there will be times when you may have to make small talk and smile, but as long as your motive is trying to genuinely relate to this person, you are doing better than most, and I applaud your effort.

Please subscribe for the full article and the coming chapters for The Language of Us