Communications set to "High" or "Low"?

[MartialIntent]

Great insight again SL!

It's interesting; I just came back a little while ago from an all-day training about communicating with teenagers. Something we talked about was how many teens feel like they are not understood or respected. Throw in the fact that they may not know how to describe how they feel; they may not know the right words for those feelings. There was definitely an emphasis on doing more listening than talking. What surprised me was the whole notion of not giving advice or offering solutions to problems in a conversation with a teen client (or any other client, for that matter). Instead, we were to offer different options, or ask them to come up with some options of their own.

Ah, my apologies, I didn't check your profile and see your occupation! Well SL, I obviously defer to your greater experience in this particular situation. I definitely agree though that teens usually inhabit the most complex emotional constructions. I worked in a voluntary capacity in a child-counselling organization, dealing with many horrendous situations from suicidal notions thru mental and physical abuse. Our core training was essentially NOT to offer advice - similar to your own training. I think there's an important point in there and it's that we have to be TOLD not to offer advice because we believe our advice is something that's inherently worth giving. And in many ways it's humbling to NOT give advice and just listen with a true listening ear and let people talk. I recall this was particularly poignant when speaking with those who didn't see any point in continuing with their lives. It's easy to say "you're young, you've got everything to live for," and despite this probably being closer to the truth than what the sufferer imagines, it's still not helpful to say it, in fact sometimes the best thing in the world we can say is nothing at all and listen instead. Motivation to act for change in emotional situations has to come from within, don't you think? It's our job to encourage that thought process and not be so conceited to think our talk is worth disturbing the sound waves for...

Yes, I definitely think that there are different levels of "appropriateness" in communication. For example, though I may convey to a client (or maybe even a total stranger) that I'm not having a good day, I would not necessarily volunteer an explanation about why I wasn't having a good day (especially if the reason is...personal). Another thing that was pointed out in today's training was that though we (myself and the other social workers) are bound to keep client information confidential, our clients do not have that same obligation. Therefore, we should NOT tell them anything that we don't want repeated. Same thing when talking with a total stranger or someone I don't know very well. Though I may have decided to hold a conversation in confidence, there is no guarantee that the other party would not use that conversation as fodder for gossip. There would have to be a certain level of trust before I disclose certain information.

That's an extremely interesting point that I hadn't thought of specifically. And I'd suppose that's related to trustworthiness. Thinking about it, I probably treat it a little differently if only by saying that while I'm happy to have "intimate" conversation with pretty much anyone that is willing to reciprocate [social appropriateness assumed!], I'd have levels of intimacy such that the more I trust someone, the deeper I can go. But that doesn't preclude a level of intimacy in communication with whomever. But yeah, I agree totally with what you're saying.

When using Jade Tigress's above model of having inner, middle and outer circle of acquaintances, I'm now thinking that there may be folk in that middle circle whom I'd trust more with personal information than I would with some of my "inner" circle of friends. That's odd, I hadn't thought of that either. I'd have assumed that my confidantes would have come from the "inner" circle alone. Well, see, you've given me a little revelation right there!!

I think that barriers of communication are more mental than physical. I know that some of us may be put off by physical barriers, such as deafness, muteness, etc. But I think that we may allow our preconceived notions of a person hinder us from giving that person a chance at a meaningful conversation.

Those are very interesting points SL and again thanks, I hadn't considered those at all. A colleague of mine uses a wheelchair and I found myself treading on eggshells and often not catching myself until it was too late. I was hyper-aware of any sentences with the words sit or stand or get up or whatever. Again, the thing that brought an end to that was actually talking it over. In the end, he laughed and now I speak to him without that nasty PC cloud hanging over the conversation. For me, the great thing about preconceptions and prejudices is learning something about a person that breaks that preconception and makes me rethink how I see the person. I actually enjoy being wrong in these cases, don't you?

Yeah, I'm getting paid alright. Just not an awful lot; a social worker's salary (even at a Master's level) isn't the greatest. I'm certainly NOT getting rich in this profession.

I hear ya! But imo -lottery winners excepted- the money ain't where the happiness is really at. I'd happily take a cut in pay for a job I truly enjoy. I can't get it though because I don't know what it is... yet.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. The trick is knowing when to shut up and listen - and unfortunately, some of the "talkers" I know don't seem to be able to grasp that concept.
And silence in a conversation isn't always a bad thing. Personally, I feel awkward during long periods of silence. I think I have to wrap my mind around the whole concept of "silent pauses" in a conversation a little better, because I sometimes have a tendency to say something dumb just to fill in the space.

I understand what you mean. A pause is fine if it's a "pregnant" pause where we're anticipating an answer or response but those awkward pauses take practise to overcome. I think it's just a human reaction to maintain the momentum of a conversation but I believe this is where we start to waste words and speak with no useful purpose. In these cases we really are talking to a wall as you said. Personally I think there's no better time to utilize your knowledge of body language and non-verbal communication than during an awkward silence: a light but audible exhalation, pursing your lips, stroking the brow, looking high up to the ceiling, whatever - if you're looking to restart a conversation this non-verbal deviousness usually works.

The spoken words themselves actually comprise a VERY small part of communication. Your body language and tone of voice actually convey your message a LOT clearer than your words themselves.

Absolutely!

Speaking for myself, I pay attention to the little things. I actually do remember things like favorite colors, television shows, movies, etc. It also helps the other person to know that I was actually paying attention in the conversation, and I think it does show a certain level of caring.

That's certainly a fair point also. Of course the important point here is that you *do* care and that makes it a valid reason to engage at that level. I still think that most of the chitchat that goes on happens because we like talking. We think it's got purpose, we think folk are listening but at the end of the day, we dont really care because we like talking.

Now...if I could only get better at remembering faces with the names; it's that darned selective memory working against me!

Me too. I've read that the best technique for face/name association is to check the persons face for a distinct characteristic and then create an association between that characteristic, the face, and the name in your mind and then when in an initial conversation, use the person's name as often as you can without having it sound odd... There now!

Thanks again SL - all good stuff! Hope to hear more if you have time.

Respects!

 

[lonecoyote]

I recently visited a young man who had broken his back. I liked him, he had rented an apartment from me, and I thought he and his wife were nice young people. You cheer for some people from the sidelines, even if you're not involved in their daily lives, that was my relationship towards him. When I asked how he was, well, I could see how he was. It was very bad. What I was saying with "How are you?" was " I care" and a lot more, too, his "okay" as he struggled so hard to shake my hand meant "thank you" I knew how he was doing, only 20 years old w/so much pain ahead of him. So it wasn't rhetorical, just didn't mean "How are you". So the answer to your first question is sometimes, but not always, and there can be hidden depths and levels to "How are you?" Your second two questions are related I believe. If you just flat talk too damned much your words carry no weight. Chit chat sure. But still, measure your words a little, we only get so many til the end and so what you say should mean something, if at all possible.