How talking can take the guesswork out of the equation

The revelatory purpose of talking

Talking serves, among other things, a revelatory purpose. Through talking (or communicating in some form) people reveal useful information, about where they stand, their concerns, their values, etc. There is the subject at hand, of course (e.g. the threat of artificial intelligence (AI) to human employment; there is the attitude toward that subject (AI is going to be a huge risk); and there is the way they express themselves, or the oratorical tone (distanced, passionate, sardonic, etc.).

I’m willing to bet that, all things being equal, the longer people talk, the more they reveal. And what they reveal comes not only through words, but also through their body language, signals, etc. some of which maybe intentional and some not.

In a previous post, I wrote about how dialogue between stakeholders was such an important, and yet not overly complicated, solution to many problems — particularly those involving people or groups with different interests. The post touched on several reasons why talking things out is so conducive to resolving issues.  I urged readers to always consider it as a potential solution.

The Los Angeles Times, in an article about how the recent horrific Sri Lanka Easter Sunday bombings were enabled by poor communication argued that “Free press and open communication foster debate and combat falsehoods and prejudices, between and within the various groups.”

The many things that talking is good for

To explore the phenomenon a bit further, talking with other people, like some of the most popular things in this world, serves multiple purposes. (Think of the multi-functionality of the smartphone, and before that, the Swiss Army knife, not to mention the mouth or, heck, the human being. I could go on.)

Talking allows you to inform — or misinform, if that is your goal — to explain, to learn, to exchange information, to persuade, to clarify a position, to explore areas of common interest, to negotiate, to connect and build a relationship, even to empower the other side. As to this last example, think of a regime which, after months of anti-regime protests, agrees to meet and talk with the protesters. This significantly enhances the protesters’ credibility. To go back to the assertion I opened with, talking is crucial for reducing uncertainty and doubt by putting more information out there.

The beauty of the live experience

Unlike one-way or back and forth sporadic communication, with gaps in between, talking face-to-face (or via the various videoconferencing technologies) allows you to gauge the reaction of the person you are communicating with, and to modulate your message “in real time,” so to speak. That way, you can ensure your fellow interlocutor understood you correctly, and, if not, you can immediately modify impressions or correct misunderstandings.

Miscommunication – communication’s evil twin

Poor communication — especially when it is absent, or only one-way — results in one or the other parties resorting to filling in the gaps with their own imagination or assumptions. Even just small gaps in communication can create uncertainty. If you’ve ever sent an email (or text) and not received an answer, you’ll know what I mean. Did the other person not get it? Are they too busy? Do they prefer to communicate through a different platform?  Is it a low priority for them? Are they oblivious? You don’t really know, and so you end up trying to figure out what the lack of response means.

An interesting example of many people not communicating is the United Kingdom’s so far unsuccessful attempt to leave the EU — an event now postponed until the end of October 2019. It is not a stretch to say that the latest twists and turns in this ongoing Brexit saga — with the UK trying to extricate itself from the deep economic and regulatory embrace of the EU — are very much about communication, and its evil twin, miscommunication. After over two years of unsuccessfully trying to formulate a plan for leaving the EU that also commands enough votes in Parliament, British Prime Minister Theresa May finally decided to talk to opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn in early April, in a last-ditch attempt to fashion a cross-party compromise. This was something she had resisted for over two years, and many have criticized May for focusing entirely on internal Tory party issues instead of trying to find a consensus that a divided country could somehow live with.

While the likelihood of a satisfactory solution to the Brexit conundrum doesn’t appear any closer, the fact that May agreed to sit down with Corbyn was an acknowledgement that talking with the other side presents a potential way out of the impasse.

The next time you open the newspaper and read about some issue or conflict, keep an eye out for mention of communication, or talks. It comes up quite a lot as a sticking point. Typically, observations will be about communication style, or lack of communication, or the need for communication. One reason Richard Plepler left HBO after it was taken over by AT&T was said to be that HBO and its new parent company had communication issues.

Strategic non-communication?

Of course, keeping people guessing by not letting them know what you are thinking or are planning, can be a tactical move. It can benefit you, and not them. It could simply be due to oblivion on the “silent party’s” part. Or it could be deliberate. This is how communication becomes “weaponized” as part of a power play. Needless to say, it is not pleasant to be on the receiving end of this game, especially when you are not prepared for it.  What is the best response in such a case? Tit for tat, i.e. stop communicating yourself? Or seek out the opportunity to talk, knowing that you may be rebuffed? We should not forget, either, that there are also ways of communicating that don’t involve words. In a follow-up post, I will explore some of these options.