I am a programmer. I design software used to run tests in the lab experiments. These are complicated and precise tests for complicated and precise processes. So my controls of these processes need to be precise. I will send a command to a power supply and tell it, "Set yourself to 10 volts" or to a frequency generator and tell it, "Set yourself to 10 MHz" or to a temperature controller and tell it, "Set yourself to 90 degrees C." That is normally all that is required. But, as I said, these are complicated and precise processes, so I don't leave it at that. As a matter of routine, my next step in the sequence is to immediately ask the question, "So ... what are you set for?" The power supply or the frequency generator or the temperature controller will tell me what it is set for and I can compare the result with my intended result. If it is not the same, I know that something interfered with our communications, and I can take steps to remedy the communication error. It's a very workable method providing consistent results.
I often wish I had the same thing in my normal interactions with people. I don't know how many times what I say is not what they hear. Sometimes it's a simple mistake. I say, "That's pretty smart" and they hear "That's pretty hard" and get defensive because I'm questioning something they suggested rather than the agreement that I intended. So, my "software" would say, "That's pretty smart" and then say, "What did you hear me say?" and they would answer, "That's pretty hard" and I'd be able to say, "Oh, no, that's not at all what I meant to say. I meant to say that your solution is smart, not hard." And peace would reign.
More often the misunderstanding is "behind the scenes". A prime example comes from someone else's experience. The husband and wife were in a nice ice cream shop because he offered to buy her an ice cream. While they reviewed the choices, he commented, "Boy, this place is sure getting expensive." What she heard was, "Boy, you sure cost me a lot of money." It wasn't that she misunderstood his words. She simply understood his words to have another intent behind them. So my "software" would kick in here beautifully. "Boy, this place is sure getting expensive. Now ... what did you hear me say?" "I heard you say that I cost you a lot of money." So the "software" could begin the process of immediately correcting the mistake. "Oh, no, that's not at all what I meant. I was wondering if this ice cream company had demonstrably more expensive ingredients, or if they had more expensive processes, or if perhaps they were more greedy and were charging more money because of their name. As for you, there isn't enough money in the world to pay for what you are worth to me. Every dime I spend comes far short of the immense worth you are to me. I will never be able to repay the value you have for me." And peace would reign.
Of course, that's all fantasy. No such software exists for human interaction. It would be nice, but it doesn't exist. And, of course, the second half of that equation is that he really may have meant that she cost him a lot of money, and peace wouldn't reign. Still, wouldn't it be nice if we really could communicate before we start fighting.
My wise mother taught me "Communication is tenuous at best." It is my suspicion that we are either not aware of that, or we forget it. It is also my suspicion that if we spent a little extra time listening rather than speaking, we might find communication improves. What did they really say? What did they really mean? Before I leap to conclusions there, I should find out. Oh, wait ... isn't that what James said? "Be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger" (James 1:19). I would suppose that if God inspired it, it is a good idea.
4 comments:
Good advice for anyone.
I wear hearing aids, at least I wear them when I know that I will be in a controlled environment where I intend to listen to others speaking. They are a royal pain outdoors, picking up lots of ambient noise and so I leave them at home when working.
I have grown used to asking folks to repeat what they have said, having heard something rather strange in an otherwise normal conversation. My ears don't pick up subtle differences between certain consonents which forces my brain to "fill" in the subject matter with something which either could or should fit to complete what has gone around it. That works most of the time; when it doesn't I have some fun lines that make me laugh.
Back to your admonition of being swift to hear and slow to anger; perhaps this is God's way of driving home that lesson to me. I, of necessity, have to listen more closely. I also have to think about what I've heard to make sure it all made sense. This is close to what we are all instructed to do.
Perhaps we should all consider ourselves hearing impaired to some degree and learn to listen as if we know we will be missing things and expect to have to seek clarification. =)
Great advice for bloggers. Perhaps the primary reason God did not want Adam and Eve to eat the fruit of the the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was that they couldn't handle it. They were limited and would only corrupt/confuse the knowledge. Only God knows what to do with it all.
Fascinating post.
This is a primary point in some of Gary Chapman's teaching on marriage, too. In order to build a better marriage, each person has to work on him or her self to be a better communicator! And the first task of a successful communicator is listening and clarifying what comes in your ears. My husband and I often use this strategy from Dr. Chapman's seminar: "So what you're really saying is...?" It's amazing how much it helps to clarify what each of us are saying, and get at the intent behind our words.
Great post.
Post a Comment