thoughts on the meme "communicate, communicate, communicate!"

I'm of the belief that communication is vital for any close relationship to work out in a mutually beneficial manner. Conversely, I've seen many relationships wither & disintegrate when communication declines.

Good communication is necessary for any relationship, whether marriage or work. When there are multiple interconnected relationships -- whether a work team or polyamory -- effective communication becomes vital.

I've lately been reading up, & one writer, Susan Scott (maybe a topic for another thread), brought me up short. She points out that much communication is not particularly "good," much less "effective." There could be two people who are communicating right past each other: one or both say their piece, then they continue doing as previous, satisfied that "communication" had ensued, & totally baffled why things don't get better.

That reminds me of a quote I used to have over my desk, something like

There is no truth so great that a typical man cannot trip over it, dust himself off, & continue on as though nothing happened.

Click to expand...

Scott says that what needs to happen is conversation, where people actually talk with each other, & (more importantly) listen, rather than just flapping their lips.

I am guilty of using "communication" too freely, without specifying a need for quality of communication. This strikes me as ironic, as I've studied information theory & worked at applying it to interpersonal dynamics; therein, merely broadcasting a message says nothing about the accuracy of what is received, if it was received at all. (As well, there's interesting details, like how overcommunication that swamps channel capacity is basically as problematic as undercommunication.)

I'm going to have to ponder this one awhile. For the moment, I want to say that communication -- the willingness to disclose & to engage -- is highly important to polyfolk, but that it likely must lead quickly to deep conversation: interaction, exchange, give-&-take.

(Oh, yeh, sorry: the book I have in mind is Scott's Fierce Leadership. It's a sequel of sorts to her Fierce Conversations, which IMO pales by comparison. Highly readable, btw, & she makes clear that her hopes to improve the world "one conversation at a time" apply as much to personal life as to business.)

(Though marketed as a business book, this is an unnecessary limit. The "leadership" part aligns well with my concept of polyamory: everyone should be able to lead, & everyone should be able to follow. No dictators, no sheep.)

I understand what you're saying about communication. I define it differently; to me, communication includes both sides of the equation. The speaking/relaying of information, and the listening/processing of that information. If someone says something, and the other person isn't listening and doesn't take in what the first person has said, to me that isn't communication. It's an attempt to communicate, but it isn't a successful attempt.

I'm thinking about reading, "Nonviolent Communication: a language of life," by Marshall Rosenberg. Third edition.

KC43 said:

Communication includes both sides of the equation. If the other person isn't listening... it's an attempt to communicate, but it isn't a successful attempt.

Click to expand...

First thought: oh, yeah!! My epiphany was that many people who wash up on this site & say "I tried talking to them..." or "I discussed it with them..." were probably not being heard, & possibly had overlooked the need to be heard (& comprehended) before proceeding.

Since life is NOT a sitcom where everything wraps up neatly after 23 minutes of shenanigans (a couple of days at most in TV World), then are entirely forgotten by everyone, this often leads IRL to longterm anger, hurt, & distrust.

Second thought: calling it "an attempt" might be far too generous. There seems to be many people who have learned how to "game" this interaction, to act as though they are trying to interact, but have found ability to arrange presentation variables so as to appear (to an objective other) deserving of special consideration -- with less jargon o), to profit from broken "communication."

Anyone who's parented has run into these tricks, like, "I told Mom about the concert, & she didn't say no, so I figured it was okay to skip school" (she didn't say "yes" either, much less, "sure, take the car, honey!" & may have been on the phone or otherwise distracted) or "Mom says it's okay ONLY IF Dad says it's okay, & Dad says it's okay ONLY IF Mom says it's okay... & that adds up to 'it's okay with us.'"

What's bothersome from toddlers & teenagers is NOT cuter when played out by a "responsible adult."

"Good and effective communication" - to me, this entails a bunch of stuff - including but not limited to:

- The willingness and intent to share thoughts, feelings, information and affection with one's partner.

- Both/all parties actually doing the above on a regular basis, without undue pressure or prompting.

- Engaging in mutually enjoyable, informative and entertaining conversation (in whatever format), as well as spontaneous displays of affection.

- "Active listening" when one partner presents the other partner/group with a problem or issue that requires discussion, clarification, resolution.

- All parties concerned having the willingness and intent to hear the other party out, and actively solve whatever issue is presented.

- All parties concerned being willing to ACT in order to solve the issue. And afterwards, to reconvene, check in, clarify that resolution has actually taken place to the satisfaction of the individual or group.

****************

"Bad and ineffective communication" is the opposite of all the above, obviously. It includes such behaviours and mindset as:

- Being unwilling to share one's thoughts, feelings, relevant information with partners. (Being closed-off, shutting down.)

- Having to be constantly prodded to engage with partner/s either outside or inside the bedroom.

- Refusing to participate in unnecessary conversation, discussion, sexual activity... basically, being remiss when it comes to engaging with a partner for the sake of simply enjoying their company/presence.

- Talking over one's partner, using "selective hearing", kitchen-sinking, sarcasm, idle or actual threats, "jokes", denial... or a host of other non-productive or belligerent means of "communication" when presented with an issue one partner wants to discuss/solve.

- Utilising "the silent treatment"/ignoring/not answering messages to completely shut down conversation or shut out a partner.

- Agreeing to a solution on the face of it, then refusing to cooperate or act in the spirit of that agreement or proposed solution, so that nothing ends up being resolved, yet the partner at fault can still claim the high ground.

lunabunny said:

Talking over one's partner

Click to expand...

Actually, that's one of the things our core triad would do all the time, particularly when it was just the three of us hanging out.

There wasn't any meanness or self-serving, though, it's just that we'd get so excited to be validated by each other & to build on another's ideas. Not uncommonly, we'd each have a pad to make notes on, so that we could let a really interesting facet be picked up later & not interrupt someone on a roll.

Though it probably sounded like utter chaos, it was actually rather Robert's Rules.

Some time ago, I wrote this to a member on here, I highlighted the bits I think are relevant to this post:

"you're extremely articulate and have a good comprehension of your own feelings. You're able to express them quite fluently. Generally speaking, I'd say women tend to be better at that than men. However, when one is very articulate, expressive and on top of that, opinionated, it can be easy to mistake offloading your thoughts, feelings and desires for an actual discussion.

How this would manifest for me is that I'd make some sort of proposal or give my view on a current situation. My partner would respond with their views, usually expressing some doubts about how my way will work for them and I'd "listen". I'd then basically "alleviate" their concerns by telling them why their doubts and concerns are unnecessary or illogical and keep going until they stopped expressing them. I would talk, email, write letters, send articles, anything. Emails and letters seemed particularly effective because I'd feel like I could say everything I wanted to without interruption. In fact it was a way of me controlling the flow of the conversation and stating "facts" or a premise to build off which might not be true for both parties. I was literally wearing them into submission. And when they did submit, I'd think they now see my perspective and agree when actually they just got tired of explaining that they completely understand what I'm saying, they see the logic, it just isn't what they want/need and actually my continual dismissal of their feelings on their matter is becoming toxic for them. Toxic because they'd start to feel wrong for feeling the way they do since I was so very sure my way was right and could be right for them if they'd give it a chance.

When it became toxic for them, they'd often display behaviors that I'd generally count as beneath them. Not in sync with the person I met. You know, dismissive, rude, aggressive, distant, cold... and I'd see them as the aggressor. As the mean one. In truth, how some of those people behaved towards me was cruel and unacceptable, but my behavior towards them was equally unhealthy and often preceeded the new personality traits they started to show. I was bringing out the worst in them.

Long story short, I wasn't listening to my partners. I'd come away thinking we just had a productive discussion when actually there wasn't a discussion, it was me telling them why my views, feelings and desires are of greater importance and righteousness than theirs. Changing this about myself has helped my relationships no end."

Talking over one's partner, using "selective hearing", kitchen-sinking, sarcasm, idle or actual threats, "jokes", denial... or a host of other non-productive or belligerent means of "communication" when presented with an issue one partner wants to discuss/solve.

Click to expand...

Ravenscroft said:

Actually, that's one of the things our core triad would do all the time, particularly when it was just the three of us hanging out.

There wasn't any meanness or self-serving, though, it's just that we'd get so excited to be validated by each other & to build on another's ideas. Not uncommonly, we'd each have a pad to make notes on, so that we could let a really interesting facet be picked up later & not interrupt someone on a roll.

Though it probably sounded like utter chaos, it was actually rather Robert's Rules.

Click to expand...

What you describe is almost the epitome of active engagement - albeit of a rather over-enthusiastic kind.

Of course you understand that's not quite the type of "over-talking" to which I was referring.

Raising one's voice or interrupting the other person repeatedly can be a rather effective form of intimidation and/or obfuscating/invalidating the point they're trying to make, in an attempt to command attention and elevate one's own views.

Inevitably, doing so will result in either of two outcomes: the other person shrinks from the verbal assault and withdraws as they don't feel heard; or else they rail back just as loudly and a full-scale argument ensues.

I would talk, email, write letters, send articles, anything. Emails and letters seemed particularly effective because I'd feel like I could say everything I wanted to without interruption. In fact it was a way of me controlling the flow of the conversation and stating "facts" or a premise to build off which might not be true for both parties. I was literally wearing them into submission

Click to expand...

This is a really great example, SEASONEDpolyAgain. Personally, I can relate to what you describe, as I developed an unfortunate tendency of "communicating" in such a fashion with my last partner, Jester. (Add in "archiving", as he called it - where I'd dredge up old messages and examples of things he'd previously said or promised, in order to "prove my point", which he naturally didn't appreciate.)

I'm not going to blame myself totally for this, because, (as he would readily admit), he was often remiss when it came to issues of communication and engagement; regularly going days without more than a metaphorical grunt in my direction. Eventually, I couldn't live with being shut out, and would resort to what you describe above, in order to "say my peace" or feel like I was being heard. Unsurprisingly, it didn't help, and I eventually had to accept we have vastly different needs and styles when it comes to communication.

So, is there a difference between communicating and acting on that communication? Communication has to go beyond just validating one's partner.

"I'm not going to blame myself totally for this, because, (as he would readily admit), he was often remiss when it came to issues of communication and engagement; regularly going days without more than a metaphorical grunt in my direction. Eventually, I couldn't live with being shut out, and would resort to what you describe above, in order to "say my peace" or feel like I was being heard. Unsurprisingly, it didn't help, and I eventually had to accept we have vastly different needs and styles when it comes to communication."

I pretty much came to the same conclusions. It became unnecessary once I had partners who wanted to go in the same direction that I did and had a similar needs in terms of communication.