Whether we are trying to understand ourselves, or someone conversing with us, the following patterns and habits are examples to show how communication is more than the words which are spoken or typed.
When we open our mouths or start to write, not all truth is delivered in the same type of vehicle. We each have our own preferred styles, but presenting common patterns and habits may offer a shortcut or two to understanding and clarity.
Non-Verbal “Tells”
Poker champions and mentalists alike make their living off being able to “read” what someone is communicating – even when that mark is trying to keep it a secret. In poker, this is named a “tell.”
This type of people-reading activity requires time, because we first need to recognize their baseline patterns and habits before we can identify that there is a change from those patterns and habits.
An experienced politician might communicate with a subtle eye glance that would look very different for a child with ADHD. Guessing what another person is thinking or intending is an art, more than a science.
Posture and Gate
Reading another begins with their posture and gate baseline.
Someone’s posture defines how that person holds themselves when they are in a resting position, and their gate is how they carry themselves as they move. Before reading another, we must recognize the varying types of postures and gates.
This then allows us to deduce what the changes in both of these factors could possibly mean for the individual being considered. Most of us see our own posture and gate as normal. If I’m someone who slouches or has a defensive posture, walks with no self-confidence, or moves as if I’m constantly pushing an agenda – I must recognize that not everyone is like me.
To read another we need to identify their resting stance and movement habits and patterns to recognize when those standards change in them.
Body Movements
A second area to give attention to includes specific body movements.
Notice where the other party’s feet are pointing – if toward you, they are likely engaged; if toward the door, they are probably already mentally somewhere else.
Breathing is a function that all of us do, but not everyone breathes the same way. One might make noise with every breath and another may visibly move their chest. Repeated, altered, or off-pace actions are what a grifter or negotiator would call a “tell.”
We all have these actions we do, but we may not recognize them. Our face, for some experts in this realm, is a map exposing thoughts and hidden intentions. One ancient teacher described the eyes as, “the headlights of our body” and what we focus on is often what we reflect.
While these examples are not highlighted as good or bad, they do communicate insight into the other person’s thinking and feeling during conversation.
Text Communication
Often the internet moves face-to-face talks to text, which is shared through the screens we live our lives staring at.
Text communication doesn’t allow us to watch someone’s posture, gate, or body movements, but there are plenty of tools which rely on nothing other than a person’s “voice.” Reading someone’s voice does not require audible conversation to catch what is being inferred by the person who typed the message. This is clear for any who have used sarcasm.
Conversation may be a game of catch, but sometimes we need to toss a softly lofted underhand question in order to get the other person on the same topic.
Every person in this world is wonderfully complex.
At times, the complexities can drive us crazy, but sometimes this is when we connect to another with rapport established as certainly as light is seen by opening our eyes. These are not magical tools, but we may as well “listen” to what people have to say with their own pattern and habits. Sometimes a vague question exposes the best first step to a productive conversation – if we’re paying attention.
Verbal “Tells”
There are three categories of verbal patterns and habits addressed through the remainder of this chapter, and three examples of each provided. This list is obviously not exhaustive, but is rather presented in three sets of three to point out that there are as many varieties as there are people we will speak with.
These common verbal pattern and habit categories presented are:
- Deletions
- Distortions and
- Generalizations.
Deletions are encountered when our conversational partner deletes part of their thought, distortions show up when some piece of their thought has been distorted, and generalizations are found when a statement, concept, or context has been connected to an overarching truth. All of these verbal techniques rely on the assumptions of the listener – unless clarity is requested.
Often we do not ask for clarity because we feel like we should know what they’re referencing or leading up to, but our guesses are wrong as much as they are right. These patterns and habits are vital and integral to communication, even though they each can mislead in their pursuit of brevity.
In fact, while you have been reading this book, you have been deleting, distorting and generalizing what you think is and is not important to remember.
Three types of Deletion
One of the most common conversational tools used is removing some information required for complete understanding.
A deletion is defined as, “The removal or obliteration of written, spoken or printed matter.”
Deleted information is usually deleted, because that fact or detail is detrimental to the person speaking.
Simple Deletion
A simple deletion takes place when one party in a conversation has not included half of the thought.
Someone might state, “I’m worried.” This doesn’t tell us anything other than that emotional state of the person, but we assume we understand why they are worried and often our assumptions are wrong or incomplete. In what seems to be a cruel irony, once our misunderstanding is recognized – we will only expose more reasons for that person to worry.
Ask for clarity and let them speak until we understand the other half of their statement.
Comparative Deletion
A comparative deletion works just like a simple deletion, but rather than leaving half of the thought out, there is a metaphor or comparison to an external (often unrelated) source of reference used instead of the actual point of concern.
Someone may say, “It’s not a good idea to rock the boat.” A comparative deletion, like most metaphorical and non-specific wording, can take time to clarify. Sometimes the speaker is even visibly angered when their cryptic inferences aren’t taken at face value. Asking for understanding can be a rapport killer.
A compound question like, “What happened last time the boat was rocked? And, how is this situation like that one?” can sometimes expose a path to uncover clarity of what was referenced by the comparative deletion. It is reasonable that we do not have all the details that went into the expression of concern about this un-leveled watercraft, so gentle and compound requests for clarity up front can remedy extensive conversational recovery down the road.
Point of Reference Deletion
A point of reference deletion is a more specific type of deletion. This type of deleted information is also more intentional, although that does not mean that the speaker is more aware of why they are using it.
To delete a point of reference is not merely missing some of the information, it is deleting a specific entity who/what is related to the statement. There is typically a tangible reason why that point of reference has been deleted. While the first two types of deletion can often be overcome by direct questions, this type of deletion may require more of a kid gloves approach to gain understanding.
An example of this type of deletion is, “I’ll get in so much trouble.” This statement is clearly missing identification of the one(s) who will bring the trouble and why.
Another common point of reference deletion statement sounds something like, “This always gets messed up.” This type of deletion uses vagueness instead of identifying the details of what is being messed up. Be careful to not get stuck thinking we are supposed to fix or validate the one speaking.
Some points of reference being deleted have nothing to do with the conversation or issue at hand. Stick to the point and request clarity when valid points of reference have been deleted.
If you ask yourself the question and think that it may sound offensive if it was said to you… rephrase until it’s worded in a way that you would not be hurt by hearing the same words.
Three types of Distortion
Distortions are often more difficult to recognize, because every conversation is an exercise in distortions.
None of us can completely know another’s experience, and so we distort what we hear through our past experiences. We can only guess what their experience has been using our experience and imagination.
We all function through our own bias, therefore we simplify and personalize other’s experience – which are forms of distortion. Distortion is how we rephrase another’s experience to make sense to us. Distorting facts is usually intended to create clarity, and yet distortions replace the details on the assumption that (from the perspective of the speaker) a different set of spoken or unspoken details will be common enough to create clarity and understanding.
These are good tools, but there are some instances in which distortion requires a request for our conversational partner to use their imagination in an unrealistic manner. It is also important to keep in mind that every distortion will break down eventually.
Breaking down a distortion is easiest to accomplish using kid gloves by asking questions.
Blame-Placing Distortion
A blame-placing distortion is one of the most common. “She makes me crazy” or “this is just what they do” are typical uses of an unreal identification of a third party being the source of the problem at hand.
While placing blame is an easy out, be careful to not dismiss the statement. There are real emotions being communicated, and little good is ever found in telling someone what they are feeling is wrong.
Asking for clarity when replying to this type of distortion is possible, but can be dangerous if the other person thinks you are dismissing their feelings. There is a sensation that we are building comradery if we are the one they’re confiding in, but someone who is blaming another to you will likely eventually blame you to someone else. Be careful to not habitually commiserate, even if you have a perfect reason to do so.
More often than not, even when someone blames themselves, they don’t believe they are completely accurate as to the source of their problem. Expressing frustrations of daily life is addicting, but we all have rough days and having someone agree with you when you’re talking about how frustrated you are today is not always followed up with gratitude tomorrow.
A blame placing distortion is best replied to with silence and a gentle encouragement with redirection.
Mind-Reader Distortion
A mind-reader distortion assumes knowledge of truths which are held by someone, and of which no one in the conversation can be certain.
This is often when the speaker is actually asking us to pretend that we can both read someone else’s mind. Humans typically think that we understand why others do what they do, but it’s just a guess.
Any response to this type of distortion is best to keep nebulous and non-specific. None of us can read another’s mind, even though many of us like to speak like we can. No matter what mind reading is being assumed, remember that none of us enjoy being pulled up on this type of fault.
Ask for clarity and quickly move on.
Opinion-as-fact Distortion
An Opinion-as- fact Distortion is probably the most embarrassing distortion we use.
There are opinions we hold which are backed up by a lifetime of circumstantial evidence. These opinions are natural, but when we talk about them as if they are actual facts – we typically expect others to agree with our opinions. These opinions are sometimes held so dearly that we assume we are completely accurate to present them as facts.
It is seductive when responding to this type of distortion to provoke the other person to admit that they are presenting an opinion rather than a fact. While this makes for entertaining conversation having drinks at a bar, it is rarely appreciated.
Correcting someone who uses this type of distortion is often met with aggression. None of us like to be exposed as manipulating and that is what this type of distortion does. Address this type of distortion with caution.
Three types of Generalization
Generalizations are a type of distortion, but do not distort something specific.
This type of deletion, but delete the situation being addressed in exchange for a wider view. Generalizations typically show up when there is an intent to communicate that what is being referenced is a part of a larger, commonly understood generalization.
Common phrases which lead into a generalization are:
- “this is the same as every time…”
- “the big picture is…” or
- “a 30,000 foot view is…”
Overviews of any situation, spoken in general terms, are incomplete and aim to generalize the details which aren’t vital to resolution or influence the conversation through glossed over best or worst case scenarios.
These conversational tools are common and useful, but sometimes they are misleading and manipulative.
Absolute Generalization
Universal statements like this express a perspective that is too vast to be possible – exaggeration for effect when making a point.
This type of absolute generalization functions most beneficially when the entire conversation needs to be placed on the table with a poker styled “all-in” play.
Absolute generalizations use words like:
- “can’t”
- “must”
- “always” and
- “never”
This type of generalization is too often used as a self-limiting obstacle which is not needed, but is highly relied on by the person speaking. When used habitually, they are often the result of unchecked placing blame distortions.
Words like these signal a request to reset the foundation of the conversation.
Universal Generalization
Universal generalizations include statements which generalize one part of a conversation in a way which is non-specific to the point of being universally categorized.
This type of communication pattern / habit is sometimes nothing more than an exaggeration.
Effective replies to universal generalizations are sensible, clear, and direct. This conversational tool often pops its head up when someone is trying to appear to follow a storyline which they are not following. It’s a polite action, until it is exposed.
Pre-judging Generalization
Pre-judging generalizations are unique in that they are typically quite dangerous.
Not all prejudices are racial, national, religious, or socio-economic. Some are as common as, “If they cared about us, they’d be here” type of statements. These general statements often show up in response to frustration, but they are always an act of impatient accusation. The speaker is grabbing on to whatever they can.
Statements of prejudice are not OK! Proper conversation is a humble trade. Ugly words, thoughts and actions are gross and sticky. They rarely make us better for touching them, but if required – be direct, graceful and redirect the conversation.
Every human being carries equal value. Ignore that at your peril.
Patterns and Habits Conclusion
It is helpful to set our emotions to calm. Be careful when using sarcasm to re-stating another’s thoughts.
With any distortion, deletion or generalization, actively listen to what is being said, and then reply with, “I’m not sure I follow all of that, but what I hear you saying is…” Then continue on, in your own words, to tell them what you heard. Stick to the point, and don’t commentate on secondary or tertiary topics which were brought up.
At any point they jump in to correct your phrasing, stop talking and wait for them to finish. Once they are finished, ask if you can try it again.
Once the other person confirms that what you have said sums up their position, write it down as a checkpoint of agreement in the conversation and build agreement on agreement.