Back in the 1970s, Parker Palmer, the prominent Quaker writer and educator was offered the opportunity to become a college president, David Brooks writes in his book: How to Know a Person.
“In order to think through the decision,” David notes, Parker “engaged in a Quaker practice that involves a body called a clearness committee. The committee is a group of peers who simply pose questions and allow the person to come to their own conclusions.”
When the committee met, someone asked Parker why he wanted to be a college president.
“He went on to list all the things he didn’t like about the president’s role—the fundraising, the politics, not being able to teach,” writes David.
Another person said, “I get what you don’t like, but what do you like?”
Palmer thought for a moment and then said what he would like about being a college president was having a desk with a plaque that said “President” on it.
“Finally, somebody in the clearness committee asked him, ‘Can you think of an easier way to get your picture in the paper?'”
Parker chuckled as he realized that he didn’t actually want the job. “He was grateful to the clearness committee for giving him an opportunity to listen to himself,” David writes.
“Sometimes we can’t understand personal truths until we hear ourselves say them.”
Yesterday, we considered five of David’s “nonobvious ways” to become a better conversationalist. Today, we will look at five more, beginning with. . .
Strategy #6: THE MIDWIFE MODEL.
The role of the clearness committee in the story above was both to create a safe space and to help him challenge his thinking.
“A midwife is there not to give birth but simply to assist the other person in their own creation,” David writes.
“In conversation, a midwife is there not to lead with insights but to receive and build on the insights the other person is developing.”
We are all prone to not being fully honest with ourselves. “The midwife is there to encourage a deeper honesty,” David suggests.
In many circumstances, good conversations are reciprocal with both parties talking about half of the time.
Other situations are more lopsided. For example, if “one person is going through a hard time or facing a big life decision,” David writes, then the other person plays the role of the mid-wife, “accompanying them in their process of deliberation.”
Strategy #7: DO THE LOOPING.
Looping is a psychological term for when we repeat what the other person said in order to confirm we have accurately understood what it was they were saying.
“Conversation experts recommend this somewhat clumsy practice because people tend to believe they are much more transparent than they really are, and that they are being clearer than they really are,” David observes.
Somebody might say, “My mother can be a real piece of work” and assume that the other person knows exactly what she’s talking about.
The reality is that much of what is said is open to various interpretations.
So when someone says something important, we respond with a question like “What I hear you saying is that you were really pissed at your mother.”
The speaker might then be surprised. “No, I wasn’t angry at my mother. I just felt diminished by her. There’s a difference.”
The practice of looping makes us listen much more carefully. It is also effective in keeping the other person focused on their central point, rather than getting distracted.
The problem with looping? “Some people, including me, feel a little phony when we’re looping” David writes, “If I say, ‘So what I hear you saying is…’ six times in a twenty-minute conversation, I’m going to wind up sounding more like a shrink performing analysis than a friend having a conversation.
“So I try to do it, but in a less formal way. I find it more natural to paraphrase what they just said—”So you’re really pissed at your mom?”—and pause to see if they agree with my paraphrase.”
David’s prediction? If we start looping, other people will sense a change in us.
Strategy #8: KEEP THE GEM STATEMENT AT THE CENTER.
The “gem statement” is what mediator Adar Cohen calls the truth underneath the disagreement. Something both parties agree on.
Example: “Even when we can’t agree on Dad’s medical care, I’ve never doubted your good intentions. I know we both want the best for him,” writes David.
When a conversation becomes difficult, we can return to the gem statement and keep the relationship between us strong.
Strategy #9: DON’T BE A TOPPER.
Imagine a friend shares with us that they are having trouble with their teenage son.
We respond, “I know exactly what you mean. I’m having incredible problems with my Steven.”
Perhaps we are looking to build a shared connection, but the reality is we are shifting attention back on us.
We’re saying, in effect, “Your problems aren’t that interesting to me; let me tell you about my own, much more fascinating ones.”
A better strategy? To build a shared connection, just sit with their experience before sharing our own.
Strategy #10: FIND THE DISAGREEMENT UNDER THE DISAGREEMENT.
When we are in an argument, our tendency is to state and restate our point of view in an effort to convince the other party we are right.
Not very effective.
Instead, “the more interesting thing to do is to ask, Davis suggests, is: “Why, at heart, do we disagree?” Or, “What is the values disagreement underneath our practical disagreement?”
Perhaps we disagree on gun regulations because we have dramatically different ideas around public safety or of the role of government. Perhaps, one of us grew up in the city and the other in the country.
When we look for “the disagreement under the disagreement,” we identify the underlying moral or philosophical roots of why we believe what we believe.
The discussion becomes more about “mutual exploration,” David suggests. “Suddenly, instead of just repeating our arguments, we’re pulling stories out of each other.”
More tomorrow!
______________________
Reflection: Which of David’s five “nonobvious ways” to becoming a better conversationalist do I find interesting?
Action: Run an experiment today with at least one of his strategies.