How to Speak Effectively: Influence, Engage, & Charm

How to Speak Effectively: Influence, Engage, & Charm (How to be More Likable and Charismatic Book 29) Written by Patrick King, narrated by russell newton. In the chapter that follows, we’re going to look closely at exactly what makes communication effective ...and what makes it miscommunication.

We’ll consider the importance of understanding the other person’s frame of reference, how to frame your own position, what “chunking” is and how to use it, and how to adjust your mindset so you become a conscious, clean communicator. But first, what is miscommunication? Have you ever been speaking with someone, feeling as though you are “reaching them,” when all of a sudden, they say something that lets you know that you are both on completely different wavelengths?

It can be a disorienting and frustrating experience, but miscommunication happens for a reason—and it can be avoided. Poor communication arises as a result of a mismatch of perspectives, approach, or conversational skill. Being an effective communicator means appreciating that the complicated process of communication doesn’t happen by accident.

To avoid misunderstandings you need to consciously and actively take charge of the process—and this is especially true when your message is subtle, nuanced, or very abstract. If you examine any moment of miscommunication clearly, you’ll see that understanding breaks down for a few reasons - •One or both of you has failed to understand how the other is viewing things. •Faulty assumptions have been made, or someone has jumped to conclusions.

In 1974, business professor Chris Argyris created a handy tool for better communication, which he called "the ladder of inference" (sometimes called "the ladder of inquiry"). The ladder is a metaphor for the way people think whenever they are given new information. It’s about how new data and information is processed. What’s useful about his metaphor is that it reminds us in a simple way that different people tend to process information in different ways.

If we are unaware that this is happening, we can talk at cross-purposes—and miscommunication arises. Before we look at the ladder, let’s consider an example. Imagine a couple working together on a household budget. Jamie is looking back at the past six months and trying to find out where they overspent and why. Alex is looking ahead to the next six months and trying to figure out what kind of summer vacation they can afford.

They end up having an enormous argument, with Jamie thinking that Alex is not taking money concerns seriously, or taking responsibility for overspending, whereas Alex cannot see why Jamie is stuck on what is in the past and cannot be changed. They both find themselves saying “I’m just trying to get a handle on our financial situation!” and yet mysteriously they also both feel that the other one is getting in the way. What’s happened here?

According to Argyris, communication has broken down, and it’s because Jamie and Alex are on different rungs of the ladder of inference. If you’ve ever experienced a communication breakdown of this kind, you’ll know that it can be very subtle and hard to pinpoint. Often, we are only actually aware of our assumptions, expectations, and frames of reference when they conflict with someone else’s! But this is where the ladder comes in. It looks as follows.

Imagine a ladder with each rung getting gradually smaller from bottom to top - . ACTIONS. . BELIEFS. . CONCLUSIONS. . ASSUMPTIONS. . MEANINGS. . SELECTED DATA. . OBSERVATIONS. . Now imagine that this ladder is standing in a big puddle of water, which we’ll call the POOL OF OBSERVATIONS. . This pool contains all the possible observations we can make about the world—theoretically, there are infinite possibilities. The next rung up is OBSERVATIONS.

These are all the observations that you select from the candidates of potential. We’ll look at what causes you to select some observations and not others in just a moment. The next rung is about the pieces of information you further select from these selected observations, SELECTED DATA. .i.e., it’s a subset. You’re further narrowing down the data you are focusing on. The next rung is MEANING, which is the significance you attach to these selected observations. The next rung,

ASSUMPTIONS. . is what you do with this meaning. You extrapolate or make assumptions based on the meaning you’ve extracted from the observations. On the next rung you come to CONCLUSIONS. .to make sense about what this all amounts to, and finally, these conclusions inform your BELIEFS. .about the world and your place in it. Consequently, every ACTION you take, the last rung, is informed by this long chain of inferences and meaning making. Furthermore, the ladder doesn’t just go one way.

Once you make meaning and take an action in accordance with those beliefs, then those beliefs actually tend to affect the data you are likely to select next time round on the SELECTED DATA. .rung. Can you see where this is going? There are two potential problems - 1. Though everyone may begin in the same puddle of potential observations, each person ends up constructing their own unique ladder from those observations all the way up to the actions they take.

If those ladders lead to completely different assumptions, meanings, beliefs, and ultimately actions, then conflict can arise. 2. Conflict can also occur, as we saw with Jamie and Alex, when two people are on different rungs and trying to talk with one another from different positions. In our example, Jamie is on the SELECTED DATA. .and MEANING rungs, trying to understand what went wrong and piece it all together (and, honestly, assign blame ...). Alex, however,

is on the BELIEFS. .or ACTIONS. .rung, and is already looking for ways to move on from the fact that they overspent. It may be, however, that even if Jamie and Alex were on the same rung, they may disagree on what meanings to ascribe to observations, and what beliefs and actions to take as a result. However, good communication doesn’t necessarily mean agreement—it means understanding. Jamie and Alex can have a fruitful, productive conversation even though they ultimately disagree.

At the same time, they can have an argument even when they both want the same thing and essentially agree!

How To Use The Ladder In Your Own Life. The ladder is an excellent way to identify, defuse, and resolve conflict. It’s a way to shed light on misunderstandings and get everyone moving forward again. If you find yourself in a situation where you or others are “talking past one another,” then this is your signal that communication is going to break down—or already has. The first thing to do is check which rung each speaker is on.

If the person you’re talking to has an objection that comes from a rung lower than yours, it needs to be addressed first before moving on. Your discussion should focus on bringing you both up the ladder together. For example, if Alex identifies that Jamie is on a lower rung, then the objections made start to make more sense. Alex can now address them. Jamie - “You’re not listening. We spent five hundred dollars more last month on eating out than we said we would.

That’s a big deal!" Alex - “Okay, it seems like you’re really worried about how much we overspent. I agree with you, it’s a lot. Why do you think it happened?" (Here, Alex is asking Jamie to move to the next rung, MEANING. ) Jamie - “Well, we were careless, that’s all. We weren’t paying attention." Alex - “I agree. It crept up on us. Now I’m sure you’ll agree with me, though, that there’s nothing we can do about it now.

And if we want to do better next time round, we need to start looking at the future." (Now, to the next rung—can you see the two ASSUMPTIONS. .made?) Jamie - “Yes, okay. Let’s do that."

Alex - “Unless we make some changes, we’re going to be in big trouble ( CONCLUSIONS-ellipses.- Now I know money’s tight, but I still believe that going on vacations is very important, and I don’t want to suddenly stop doing everything we enjoy ( BELIEFS-ellipses.- So I think moving forward, I want to figure out some smart ways we can still do the things we love without spending too much money ( ACTIONS...” Jamie - “Yes, that makes a lot of sense. I want to do that too."

Now, there is no more disagreement in which Jamie keeps reiterating how bad they were to overspend, while Alex feels guilty for planning vacations. They’re communicating again. Granted, in this example, we’ve kept things very simple and straightforward; in real life, each of these “rungs” may take a long time, perhaps even days. And though in our example Alex very neatly “leads” Jamie, in reality this process would be a lot more subtle, complex, and collaborative.

There may well be disagreement or compromise. But ultimately communication is improved because people are reasoning together, rather than at cross-purposes. The ladder can also be useful any time you are trying to get someone to understand your own actions, or proposed actions.

Whenever you want to “bring someone around” to your point of view, don’t start with the top of the ladder—bring them along with you and take each step of the ladder at a time so they can see how the inferences and assumptions of your argument gradually build on one another. It’s true that someone understanding your thought process doesn’t necessarily have to agree with you afterward.

The good thing is that if you use the ladder technique, you will almost always avoid misunderstandings and miscommunication, and you will give yourself the best chance of actually being heard. Another great thing about the ladder is that it shows you that the process of thinking contains many separate, sequential components—and skipping one can sometimes lead to sloppy thinking and, of course, miscommunication.

It can be useful sometimes to use the ladder to slow down and examine your own thought processes. Try working backward almost “forensically” - 1. What beliefs have inspired your actions? 2. What conclusions do you have about a situation, yourself, others, or the world that informed those beliefs? 3. What assumptions are you making? (A great question is to ask whether you really have much evidence for them, and investigate what changes if you make different assumptions or none at all).

4. What meaning are you ascribing to your experiences? 5. What are you focusing on? What data are you selecting from your environment to act on—or else, what information have you discounted, ignored, or forgotten about? 6. Finally, can you look once more with fresh eyes at the observations around you? For a moment, can you do this without any interpretation?

Asking these questions can reveal interesting ways that our own thinking has gone astray, and if we can get a better understanding of that, we instantly become better communicators. After all, how can we expect clear and conscious communication with others when we ourselves are unclear on our motivations, expectations, and the meaning we ascribe to any situation? The ladder can be used formally or informally, and for big complex chunks of data as well as more simple information.

It is highly adjustable, but its strength is that it forces you to look at things you might have taken for granted. For example, you might use the framework in a meeting you are leading. If you understand the meeting as an exercise in getting everyone to “think together,” then you can structure the meeting so that it moves deliberately from one rung to the other. This gives you time to iron out objections or confusions rather than rushing ahead to the higher rungs and risking a full-on conflict.

A few further key insights as you use the ladder in your own communication - Nobody is “wrong." The ladder is not there to help you find out who is to blame! Also, the person who is higher on the ladder isn’t necessarily faster, more intelligent, more correct, or more motivated. As we’ve seen, misunderstandings usually arise because of mismatch—that doesn’t mean that there has to be a good guy and a bad guy. It just means something is not aligning. Switch focus from content to process.

Too many arguments are sustained because people are distracted by the content of what is being said—but usually the problem is the way it’s being said, and the reasoning behind that. As you talk to someone, become tuned in to the way they are thinking—and the way you are thinking! Keep your ego out of it.

Disagreement and conflict have a way of activating our defenses and making us wrongly believe that we are the model of good reasoning, and everyone else is mistaken, stupid, crazy, wrong, bad, etc. But slow down and consider your reasoning, their reasoning, and the way the two are interacting. Remember that you are not just applying the ladder analysis to them, but to yourself as well.

You might feel like you want to stand on the top of your own ladder and yell your opinion to all who will hear it, but this is just ego talking and will get you nowhere. Ask questions. Finally, one way to become a better communicator is to actively engage them in the process of examining the underlying reasoning behind action and opinion. Ask with genuine curiosity. Why do they think X. Y. Z. ? What facts do they know, and what do those facts mean to them? Why? How?

To conclude, most of us experience the objective world subjectively and selectively. We focus on specific facts only, interpret what those facts mean based on certain assumptions, come to conclusions based on these assumptions, allow these conclusions to shape our beliefs, and then let these beliefs guide our action ...as well as determine what facts we focus on in the future.

This process can be an opportunity to create a strong, effective, and healthy way of looking at the world, or it can become an unconscious echo chamber that ends up amplifying and replicating the same errors again and again. Framing. If you’re like most people, you listen to respond. You’re reactive. You let conversations go whichever way they go. But good communicators approach things a little differently. They are more likely to proactively set the frame for a conversation. What is a “frame”?

It’s simply the way you position your line of thinking by your particular choice of words and expression. It’s the kind of thing that will appear to be everywhere once you know to look for it. It’s how we develop our arguments, “lead” our listeners along paths of reasoning and inference, and deliberately use language for a special purpose we have chosen.

Consider the following speech made by Barack Obama at the 2004 Democratic National Convention - “There’s not a liberal America and a conservative America; there’s the United States of America. There’s not a Black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America ... We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America. In the end, that’s what this election is about.

Do we participate in a politics of cynicism, or do we participate in a politics of hope?" Notice how he has structured his speech—notice the frame by which he is delivering his message. He did not simply stand up on the stage and announce - “It’s important for us to remember who we are as Americans” or even “it’s time there was an African American president, and I’ll give you some reasons why." Rather, he took seventeen long minutes to lead the audience to this conclusion themselves.

Note in the above that he asks a rhetorical question, to which the only answer can be “we participate in a politics of hope." Notice the rhythm and repetition in the way he lays out the artificial differences between different types of Americans, then leads to his conclusion - “we are one people."

Obama (and indeed anyone delivering a persuasive speech of this kind) succeeds not because he effectively shows people what he thinks, but because he constructs a compelling frame in which to communicate that message. His listeners, then, go a step further from understanding and are stirred up enough to be inspired by him and agree with what he says. When the frame of a conversation changes, everything changes. Everything takes on a different meaning.

Therefore, it’s simply not something we can leave to chance. Obama, of course, would have had this speech carefully written by experts, and he may well have rehearsed it for hours. Obama was known as a powerful and persuasive speaker, and it’s in big part due to his understanding of how to frame himself and his message. George Lakoff is an author and professor of cognitive science and linguistics.

In his book Don’t Think of an Elephant!, he explains how talking to people’s frames is a powerful way of having them really hear you, saying that we mistakenly think that, “if we just tell people the facts, since people are basically rational beings, they’ll all reach the right conclusions. But we know from cognitive science that people do not think like that. People think in frames ...to be accepted, the truth must fit people’s frames.

If the facts do not fit a frame, the frame stays and the facts bounce off. Why? Neuroscience tells us that each of the concepts we have—the long-term concepts that structure how we think—is instituted in the synapses of our brains. Concepts are not things that can be changed just by someone telling us a fact. We may be presented with facts, but for us to make sense of them, they have to fit what is already in the synapses of the brain. Otherwise, facts go in and then they go right back out.

They are not heard, or they are not accepted as facts, or they mystify us - “Why would anyone have said that?" Then we label the fact as irrational, crazy, or stupid." So, a frame is the way we work with pre-existing concepts to ensure that the message we’re sharing has the highest chance of being received. Interestingly, it’s also why Lakoff recommends resisting the frame of someone you’re pushing against by refusing to use their language.

This is because it is language that builds the frame—and if someone is not working in your interests, then the frame they choose will not be the frame you want. In Obama’s case, framing is used to persuade. But frames can have other uses and are especially helpful in navigating difficult, uncomfortable, or emotionally charged conflicts. Maybe the other person just refuses to listen or believe you. Maybe you both keep saying the same things over and over, and it’s escalating. What’s the solution?

According to Lakoff, you both need to find a way to get into the same frame. As a good communicator, it’s your job to find out what story you could tell that will resonate with the other person. Remember—it’s not about facts. It’s about all the many different ways to look at those facts, and what that means for two people who find themselves in a conversation about them. Here are a few things to keep in mind - 1.

Make sure that, as far as possible, you begin every conversation with a good idea of where you want it to go. Be proactive. 2. What is your frame? Your source of truth? The framework you’re embedded in? Really own this—it will help you find the metaphors and stories that will help you express your position. 3. Get the other person to see into this frame of yours by asking them questions. You want them to agree. Be careful and avoid using their story or their words.

4. Deliberately engineer the structure of your story so that it leads toward the kind of solutions you want. It’s about focus. Reading the above, you may think that setting a conversational frame may be a little manipulative. Isn’t thinking in this way precisely the thing that leads to stubborn standoffs in conversations? Well, yes and no. The truth is, we are all using frames all the time.

It’s just a question of whether we’re consciously aware of it, how those frames work, to what end, and in service of whom and what. Being a good communicator means understanding all this and proactively taking charge. This is more often than not a win-win scenario. Let’s look at an example. Imagine a potential client is interested but has concerns about the price you’re charging.

What you don’t want to do in this case is bombard them with facts (you might call them “reasons”) to change their mind. It won’t work. What you need to do is consider the best frame for the case you want to make. And to do that, you need to understand the frame they’re already in, the nature of their objections and fears, and what exactly it is you’re asking them to do. This might allow you to realize that the person is hesitant because they are unsure of the real value of what you’re offering.

They are very, very tired of being aggressively marketed to and just want something that works. So you say that they’re right—it is expensive. There are people who don’t buy because it’s not in their budget, and that’s okay. But you do have many satisfied clients who, having taken the leap, are now really glad they did—and you’d be happy to put them in touch. Otherwise, you totally respect their decision either way, and they know where to find you if they change their mind.

Can you feel the frame? Can you see how this response actually pulls the potential client into that frame with you? There is nothing in it for the person to push against—and a lot to agree with. As Dwight D. Eisenhower said, “Motivation is the art of getting people to do what you want them to do

because they want to do it.” In this example, you are using a frame that gives you the best chance of actually reaching this prospective client and getting them to behave in the way you want them to behave. In the same way, a frame can change anything. It can turn a restriction and a limit into “safety” and “comfort." It can position a loss as a gain or a gain as a loss. It can appoint an adversary as a teacher, and a friend as a saboteur.

The luxury fashion brand Hermes sells a handbag, the “Birkin." But not just anyone can buy the handbag; there are only a limited number available, and you have to be invited to spend the roughly fifty thousand dollars to have one. The company will only sell to those they consider worthy, and in fact don’t even fully advertise their selection criteria, and do not display the bag in ordinary stores. Their tactics around this item are kept under a deliberate veil of mystery.

Hermes has completely inverted the conventional buyer-seller frame and created their own .- In this frame, instead of the company marketing themselves so they are selected by the consumer, the consumer fights to be considered a potential buyer and feels privileged to cough up the fifty thousand dollars.

Every person you ever communicate with will have a lifetime of experiences behind them, and these have taught them in gradual increments to adopt certain beliefs and worldviews (hopefully not too many as bizarre as Hermes’). Many of these views will be unconscious. But that doesn’t stop them from being strongly influenced by these beliefs, which seep through and infiltrate everything they do and say, as well as everything they’re able to hear or agree with. Think again about Obama’s speech.

There would have been many different people in the crowd that night, and a lot of them will have possessed viewpoints and frames that didn’t match the one Obama was presenting.

For example, many Democrats who are politically involved enough to attend conventions and rallies do tend to think that there is such a thing as a “liberal America and a conservative America, a Black America and white America”—after all, they were there to show support for the democrats, not the conservatives, and specifically for Obama himself precisely because he was a Black American, not because his race didn’t matter.

This is the power of framing—it can so thoroughly change context, shift meanings, and create new understandings that it allows you to not only have a conversation but steer a conversation. This steering is so powerful that it can actually remake meaning entirely and cause people to completely change not just their opinions but the way they arrive at those opinions. Obama could have framed himself as a victim or as an angry avenger.

He could have highlighted the frame of justice, or the frame of prosperity. He could, in essence, have chosen any frame in the world. When someone uses their power to frame and influence in a good way, we call them leaders and are happy to be inspired by them. When their frames dominate and diminish us, we call them bullies and tyrants. Importantly—it’s the same skill! Reality is fixed ...but the meaning of reality is dynamic and subject to change.

It is not absolute but contextual, not passively received but actively constructed. This is where communication takes place, and where you have your greatest chance for making connections, being heard, and influencing others.

Chunking .- Adjusting The Zoom Button. Take a look at this conversation - A .- Oh, wow, so you’re a music teacher! How long have you been doing that? B .- Oh, about ten years now, at least. A .- Cool. And that whole time you taught the French horn? B .- Well, no. That’s my main instrument, but I do oboe as well. A .- Huh. I’ve heard that the French horn is really difficult. B .- Yeah, it can be. A lot of my students end up quitting, sorry to say! A .- Oh, yeah?

How long do they stay before they usually quit? B .- How long? Uh ...I’m not sure. Everyone’s different, I guess. I’d say the ones who leave do so pretty quickly. But that could be for all sorts of reasons. It’s complicated, I think. But you know early on whether you love the instrument or not. A .- Oh, totally. So maybe, like, they’d quit after the first lesson? B .- Uh ...no, not always. Sometimes a month? I don’t know. A .- Do they ever tell you before they go or do they just disappear?

And on and on. What’s your feeling about this conversation? Reading it again, can you spot the point at which is starts to kind of grind along? You can almost feel the moment where B starts to get bored. Why? Before we consider the answer, let’s look at another example - A .- Oh, wow, so you’re a music teacher! How long have you been doing that? B .- Oh, about ten years now, at least. A .- Cool. That’s a long time. Do you think you’ll always teach? B .- Well, I do sometimes wonder.

It’s rewarding, but ...people’s attitudes to learning have changed so much over the years, you know? A .- I can imagine. People seem to just have less and less patience these days. What do you think’s causing it? B .- Well, who knows. Take your pick, right? I mean, I have some very good students, so I can’t complain. A .- Oh, I’m sure. Do you think that overall your students’ motivations are changing over time? B .- Hm, could be. It’s hard to say.

A .- Do you think that you’ve had to adapt the way you teach them to accommodate for how different students are today compared with ten years ago? I often feel like we focus too much on technique in this country, and so little on the art side. Do you find that? Now consider what you think of this conversation. It’s completely different, but somehow something is still not quite working.

The big problem with both conversations (other than A asking a barrage of questions and B being somewhat unresponsive) is a question of chunking. In neuro-linguistic programming, the word "chunking" is used to describe the way in which we can group pieces of information. We can chunk “up” or “down -” . Chunking up means to ask questions or make comments in such a way as to combine information and make it more abstract and more general.

It’s the process of looking for things that are coming, or “zooming out” to see the overarching theme, pattern, or structure that simplifies all the smaller details you’re looking at. So someone gives you a long list of all the pets they’ve had throughout their life, and you chunk up by saying, “So you’re a real animal lover, huh?" Chunking down goes the other way. It’s when we ask questions or make comments that move the conversation from the general and abstract to the more specific.

Someone says they love animals, and you ask them, “Do you have a pet?" In doing so, you’re asking for a more specific instance of the general claim they’ve just made, i.e., zooming in. Basically, chunking is a way to turn the dial on the level of detail occurring in a conversation. Let’s return to our examples above. In the first example, Speaker A asks questions that lead to them zooming in on the idea of students quitting and exactly when they quit and why.

It’s as though each question drills deeper and deeper into this one chosen thread—perhaps to the boredom of Speaker B! The second conversation has a different problem. Here, Speaker A keeps asking questions that open up the conversation to a more abstract level. But in time, these questions just seem to go nowhere.

They are soon talking about students in general, and then all people and their total lack of patience, and then the entire system of music education in the whole country—there’s a load of sweeping generalization and broad abstraction. Again Speaker B is not quite enjoying this flight into the abstract! Chunking up questions/phrases/themes can look like - •What does that mean? •Let's look at the big picture ... •How does that connect to ...? •Why did all of that happen? •What pattern is emerging?

Chunking down, on the other hand, could sound like - •What happened next? •Can you provide a specific detail? (For example, what was his name? How much did it cost?) •Tell me more about ... •When did this happen, and in what order? Which is better to use—chunking up or down? The answer is neither, because a good conversation contains a dynamic balance of both of them. We can zoom in and out to various levels of detail and abstraction according to our needs.

(We’ll explore this more in a later chapter when we look at “funnel questions.”) Start at a broad, general level and work your way down. This may correspond with more open-ended questions, but it doesn’t necessarily have to - 1. Start with chunking up to define the “territory” of your conversation, state the parameters of the problem, or gently introduce a new conversation or topic. 2. Gradually chunk down, but do not ask more than three chunking down questions in a row.

Find out things like specific goals, motivations, problems, interpretations, examples, etc. 3. Then zoom out again with another chunking up question. Again, try not to ask more than three of these in a row. The point of zooming in and out is to avoid either extreme .- Get too abstract and lofty and you risk creating a stiff, impersonal, and vague conversation about nothing and everything.

On the other hand, linger too long on chunking down questions and you can get lost, stuck, or distracted by irrelevant details. A good metaphor is to imagine that you and your conversation partner are mutually navigating your way up a winding mountain path, using a map. Sometimes, you’ll both want to lean in and engage with the finer details of exactly where you are—the rocks and trees and so on. You’ll focus on this turn or that turn, and the one foot in front of the other.

But every once in a while, you have to consult the map and get a bigger picture of what you’re doing. You need to look up and take in the horizon, or glance behind you to see how far you’ve advanced up the mountain and how much longer you have to go. You might even take a break and consider the whole reason for climbing the mountain in the first place!

In any case, good mountaineers have both skills—they pay attention to the gravel beneath their boots, but also look up and around them and engage in the broader task. The ideal conversation, then, would be a comfortable mix of the first and second of our examples above.

For instance, instead of continuing to dwell on the students who quit, and exactly when they quit and why, Speaker A could take a metaphorical step back, allow the conversation to breathe a little, and take the opportunity to chunk up. Similarly, three or four chunking up questions into the second conversation is a good time to stop talking abstractly and probe for some specifics. Conversational Extremist .- The Nitpicker.

In our examples, chunking up or down is something we can locate in a single question or comment. But it can often be more subtle than this. “Nitpickers” are people who have a longstanding tendency to have conversations constantly take place on a concrete, literal, and detailed level. The result can be a conversational style that is felt by others to be very dull, dragging, and uninspired. It’s like the conversation gets “stuck in the weeds” and never really launches.

This is the person who, when you tell them you’ve met the love of your life, will be curious about what time in the morning you met them and what their name is and whether you spell that name with one L or two. We tend to become conversational nitpickers ourselves for a few reasons. We may be anxious and trying to control the course of the conversation but inadvertently keep it muzzled to endless mundane details. We may be bored ourselves.

The way out is simple .- If you find that you or your listener is getting bored or distracted, sit back (sometimes literally!) and ask an open-ended, completely abstract question. Say something about an intangible concept. Introduce a metaphor, or even a controversial and nuanced opinion. This should kick the conversation back into gear. Conversational Extremist .- The Philosopher.

The other extreme is the person who never, ever comes down from some towering abstract conversational heights and seems to always be looking down at humans and all the petty details of their lives ...a bit like a philosopher. These are the people who will constantly try to make isolate observations or single anecdotes mean something about a grander political, social, or philosophical narrative.

You might want to rant a little about someone who was late, and they respond with a deep-and-meaningful deconstruction of the entire notion of lateness, of all mankind’s tendencies to rebel against artificial segmentation of this imaginary construct called time, and to finish off, some complex psychoanalysis of the late person—not just this person in question, but all people who are late.

The conversational philosopher is someone who is always looking for theories, patterns, and overarching themes, but this can come across as pompous, cold, and irrelevant. The solution, here, is also obvious .- Come back to earth with a question about this person’s specific life in the here and now. This should immediately anchor and ground the conversation, with a side effect of making you seem more human, more approachable, and more relaxed.

Chunking up or down, then, is not just a cognitive exercise about how information is managed. It’s also about the degree of openness or closedness in a conversation, the overall sense of flow, and the extent that either levity or seriousness is allowed to dominate. Use chunking up questions when you want to summarize, contextualize, consolidate, or get some distance—theoretical or emotional. This is a focus on an overarching organization, on purpose and intention.

Use chunking down questions when you want to expand on some point, zoom in, confirm, or get to grips with the more “real” aspects of the conversation. This is a focus on how the overarching themes express themselves in specific ways, on unique experience, and on the details - who, where, when, how, what, and why. Finally, pay attention to chunking in conflict situations. You may discover that at least part of the problem is that two people are talking with different chunking tendencies.

For example, your boss may call you in with the intention of discussing an issue. Your boss keeps listing out all instances of this issue and expanding on the details of each. You get impatient because you are eager to understand what all of it means—what is the single insight or conclusion you are meant to come to?

Your boss sees you wanting to boil everything down and find some common cause for each transgression, but assumes this means you are not accepting the fact that there are many offenses, not just one. You see your boss endlessly listing grievances but without synthesizing them into anything you can act on. And round and round you both talk, both unable to reach one another because you’re operating at completely different levels of detail.

When communication has devolved to this extent, the way back to a shared frame of reference is to ask questions or make comments that gradually close the gap.

“What is that an example of?" “Is there something that connects all these observations?" “What one thing do you want me to take from this conversation?" On the other hand, if you’re having a conflict with someone who is being overly vague and abstract, try to help them zoom in by asking things like - “Can you give me a specific example of what you’re talking about?" “When did this event happen? With whom? How?" “Can you pinpoint the exact moment it all went wrong?"

Think Before You Speak. “I just call it like I see it." “I’m being honest." “That’s not what I meant to say." “I’m just being me." “I don’t do small talk." Have you ever said any of the above? One major impediment to health, effective communication is a set of subtle but very damaging beliefs about what is actually required of us as humans when we speak to others.

Some of these beliefs come from the idea that as long as we are authentic, sincere, and share our emotions, that’s enough; in other words, our intentions matter, and how we articulate ourselves is less important. Nothing could be further from the truth! Good communicators know that you cannot just, well, blurt out whatever enters your mind. You need to be deliberate. You need to consciously filter what you say. You need to speak with purpose and discipline.

If you’ve ever said something you later regretted or really “put your foot in it,” then this is a sign that you could use more deliberation in the way you communicate! The first thing is to subtly challenge the idea that communication is solely about expressing yourself, your position, or your emotions.

It is not really relevant whether you have a strong feeling about something, whether you feel like you’re right (or even if you are right!), or whether you are overcome by this or that impulse in the moment. Since communication is a social activity, it involves others, and that automatically means that a portion of all communication is simply not about you.

People who understand and work with this insight are ultimately better at communication than those who keep on stubbornly insisting “it’s not my fault that they misunderstood me!" Being a conscious and careful communicator means you avoid causing offense or misunderstanding, you boost your credibility and maturity in other peoples’ eyes, and you generally keep yourself out of trouble!

Speaking without thinking, however, often occurs because we’re impatient, we’re conversational narcissists (more on this later in the book), we are not good at listening, or simply we’re excited and get carried away with sharing what we want to share. Not everything you think and feel needs to be shared. Not everything that pops into your head needs to be expressed. To decide what qualifies an idea to be shared, ask yourself the following questions - 1. Do I have good motives?

Is what you’re going to say helpful or useful to yourself or anyone else? Be honest about what your motives are. Many people butt in during conversations to share some tidbit of information that is completely irrelevant, simply because it satisfies their own ego to say something and impress others. Be real and assess whether what you’re saying moves things forward and contributes to the shared goal of the conversation (i.e., not some hidden agenda of your own).

Some people will say something along the lines of “if you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all." But sometimes, you will have to express something that’s not “nice,” especially if you are defending a boundary or addressing conflict. Still, your motives should be to share any grievance or disagreement with the intention of clarifying and resolving it, rather than to blame and shame. This is why motive matters.

You may be able to fool the other person that you are saying something out of concern or genuine misunderstanding, but at least be honest with yourself and check whether you’re speaking for some other, less noble reason. 2. Is it true? Opinions, perspectives, and desires are one thing. But ask if, beyond this, you are actually saying something you know to be a falsehood. This may seem an obvious point to labor, but often we insert little falsehoods into what we say without being conscious of it.

We exaggerate, we minimize, we omit important information, or we present our best guess as more certain than it really is. Again, it ties into motive. Are we genuinely and honestly sharing what we know, or are we trying to come across as an expert? In the realm of our own perceptions and experiences, of course, nothing is really “true” or “false”—it is our unique experience. But be careful that you never act as though something being true for you automatically makes it true for another person.

Here, being truthful means owning and acknowledging your own perspective, while not overstepping and behaving as though that perspective were truth. 3. Am I breaking confidences? It goes without saying - never share something you’ve been asked to keep private. Gossip is awful and degrades the speaker, the listener, and the person being talked about in equal measure, but you can still break confidences even without technically being in gossip territory.

Ask yourself this question .- If the person you’re talking about was present, would they be okay with hearing what you’re saying about them? 4. Is it considerate? No, you don’t always have to be kind. Some situations in life call for communication even when we don’t like or approve of the person in front of us, or where “kindness” isn’t really appropriate. But you do have to be civil, polite, and considerate. You do have to show the other person a degree of non-negotiable respect.

Sometimes, what you want to say may be true, it may be necessary, and you may be well within your rights to say it—but that still doesn’t entitle you to be rude about it. In this case, remember that etiquette and manners are not something you do merely for the other person’s sake, but something you do to communicate a degree of respect for yourself. An option is to use the THINK acronym—which stands for True, Helpful, Inspiring, Necessary, or Kind.

As we’ve seen, you don’t need to have all of these, but if what you want to say ticks only one or two boxes, you’re probably better off keeping silent or rewording your message. All of this can only be achieved when you do something essential - stop and think. Get into the habit of pausing before you talk, or even just mentally pausing.

Even a few seconds of forethought can be enough (deep down, we usually know whether something is a good idea or not even without going through the above questions—we just need to slow down enough to realize that we know!). If you’re not really sure, then err on the side of staying silent. It’s always possible to speak up later; it’s never possible to un-say what’s already been said. Understanding “Clean Communication” .

Imagine that a woman says to her husband, “Can you please take out the trash?" Now imagine that she instead says, “Can you please take out the trash for a change?" You can probably see which one is “clean” communication, and which one is a little dirty. Saying “for a change” adds a hostile blaming element that is not part of the main message, but forms a secondary piece of communication. This charge may be added in consciously or unconsciously.

On the other hand, clean, smooth communication conveys a message without adding in any kind of “negative charge." Any time your communication is serving a double role of delivering extra shame, anger, ridicule, guilt-tripping, manipulation, lies, and so on, it’s no longer clean. Imagine the husband hears the second phrase from above and responds, “Take it out yourself." The wife may then (rightly) see this as an attack and respond, “Why are you so mean to me?

All I did was ask you nicely to take the trash out!" As you can imagine, a fight ensues, in part because the wife’s initial communication was unconsciously unclean. That didn’t stop her husband from responding to what she was really communicating! Whether consciously unclean (arguably a bit easier to deal with) or unconsciously unclean, this type of communication is a kind of anti-communication. It creates misunderstandings, hurt feelings, and barriers.

Have you ever had a conversation with someone who on the surface seemed to be saying and doing all the right things, but you still somehow felt bad afterward? Maybe you had a weird physical sensation in your gut, or you felt like something was amiss. It might have felt like you were being lied to, manipulated, or subtly insulted ...chances are, you were the recipient of some unclean communication. Let’s take a look at another example.

The wife says to the husband, “Can you please take the trash out?" The husband hears this and, in his mind, interprets it to mean something like, “You’re a lazy good-for-nothing and I have to talk to you like a child!" He responds in the same way, “Take it out yourself!" As you can see, the misunderstanding is now on the part of the listener/receiver. Here, the husband is overly sensitive, and has allowed his own issues to distort the message he’s receiving. Again, the communication is unclean.

Whether snags happen on side A or side B, and whether they are done consciously or unconsciously, they can degrade communication. Even worse, little snares and hiccups can compound over time, creating animus and a feeling of negativity that is hard to shift once it’s underway. This “toxic residue” can lead to more intense conflict in time or even a big blow out, so it’s best to keep on top of communication as it happens, practicing, if you will, a kind of routine “communication hygiene."

This cleans up little misunderstandings and conflicts before they become big ones. You’ll know that there is some residue in your communication with someone when one or both of you feels - A little wary, nervous, or uncomfortable. Any combativeness and defensiveness. Lies, deception, or lowered trust. General upset or high emotional intensity. Now, the “dirt” in communication can be accidental, or it can be deliberate. If it’s accidental, the idea is to stop, take a step back, and address it.

Many innocent mistakes turn not-so-innocent if not addressed in this way. “Hey, I just wanted to talk to you about something. You asked me earlier to take the trash out, and it felt like you were kind of implying that I don’t pull my weight or something. I don’t know if I’ve got that wrong; is that what you were trying to say?" Importantly, in addressing something, you need to work hard not to introduce more unclean language!

If, however, the unclean communication is intended, then the approach is to go in to conflict resolution. “Well, actually, if we’re going to be honest about it, I have been feeling like I’m doing too much of the housework lately." The thing is, communication can be clean even during conflict. So long as messages are being shared without introducing extra negativity, then the conversation is clean and likely to be productive.

First make a promise to yourself that you will use clean language as often as you can. Make a commitment that you will be straightforward, honest, and respectful, and will never resort to underhandedness, passive aggression, or innuendo. This takes a degree of conscious maturity as well as discipline. According to clean communication experts Matthew McKay, Patrick Fanning, and Kim Paleg, the ideal communication attitude is "taking responsibility for the effect of what you say."

It also means owning the consequences of your speech, even, and maybe especially if, you’re not quite conscious of what you’re doing. Do your best to create a conversational space where you can work honestly and respectfully through any conflicts or disagreements. Leave out harmful speech, accusations, “barbed” language, and insinuations that might hurt and attack another person—and do it no matter how upset or wronged you feel.

Follow the “ten commandments of clean language” to keep you on the straight and narrow and spare yourself and others a load of unnecessary drama - 1. Don’t use judgment words and loaded terms (“pigsty” or “lazy”). 2. Don’t use “global” labels, i.e., make sweeping generalizations or use absolute statements (“you haven’t taken out the trash in two weeks” rather than “you’re an untidy person,” which takes a swipe at the person’s entire being, not just their behavior).

3. Don’t send “you” messages of blame and accusation (“I’m stressed” is better than “you’re stressing me”). 4. Stay away from old history—stick to the issue at hand and let bygones go. 5. Avoid negative comparisons (“You’re a slob just like my ex was”). 6. Never threaten, even subtly (“If you can’t be bothered to do the trash, it makes me wonder why I bother to do any of my chores”). Control and manipulation only create escalating defensiveness.

7. Describe your feelings rather than use them as a weapon or a “point” you’ve scored (“You’ve really gone and riled me up this morning! Why do you always insist on hurting me like this?”). 8. Keep your body language open, relaxed, and receptive. Call off a difficult conversation until you’re calmer, if necessary. 9. Use whole messages. Incomplete messages are more likely to be taken out of context. A whole message contains observations, thoughts, feelings, and needs/wants.

For example, “I see the trash is piling up (observation), and I realize you haven’t taken it out for a long time (thoughts). When I see that I have to do it, even though it’s your chore, I feel overwhelmed and annoyed. I’d really like for you to keep up your end of the housework as we agreed (wants/needs)." 10. Be clear. If you have a question, ask. If you want something, request it.

Avoid using passive language, innuendo, or hints (“Is there some special reason you’ve decided to let us all live in filth, or ...?”). Be direct and clear. Summary - •Poor communication arises as a result of a mismatch of perspectives, approach, or conversational skill. People process information differently, but to avoid misunderstandings, communicate consciously and use the “ladder of inference."

It shows the unique way that people use their experiences to make meaning - observations > selected data > meanings > assumptions > conclusions > beliefs > actions. •Conflict can occur when people are on different rungs. To improve communication, see where people are and how their ladder of inference is working for them, then speak to that, in sequence, and without blame or shame.

•Good communicators deliberately create their own frames during conversations and position their line of thinking by using specially chosen words, expressions, and images. Change frames and you change meaning. •Deliberately engineer your conversational frame and invite the other person in using pre-existing concepts they’re familiar with to improve the chances they’ll be receptive. Remember that reality is fixed, but the meaning of reality is dynamic and subject to change.

•Chunking is about the way we group information. Chunking up is grouping specific instances into a larger overall abstract pattern or theory, while chunking down makes inferences from the general to the specific. Keeping the level of detail varied and appropriate creates a better flowing conversation than one that relies too heavily on chunking up or chunking down. •It is a mistake to think that authenticity, expression, and sincerity are enough—how we articulate ourselves matters.

Consciously filter what you say .- Is it true, kind, and helpful? •Take responsibility for what you say and practice clean communication—i.e., without hidden negative meanings. This has been How to Speak Effectively: Influence, Engage, & Charm (How to be More Likable and Charismatic Book 29) Written by Patrick King, narrated by russell newton.