Shout Out to Readers

As an avid reader, I find reading on a regular basis how fewer people these days are reading to be a constant source of irony. Besides the information that such pieces impart, is the purpose of these articles to remind those of us who do read that we belong to a club whose membership continues to dwindle? Or is it to motivate us to put down our books and go out and recruit more folks to read? Perhaps it is both. I am not sure. But what I do know is that I, for one, am not inclined to try and talk others into taking on an activity that they know brings benefit to their lives and helps expand their minds.    

People are free to make their own choices. Even now, for instance, lots of men and women regularly smoke cigarettes even though they know doing so will in all likelihood be fatal. Am I inclined to get them to make a different choice? Not really. Does that make me uncaring? I do not think so. We all make choices - good and bad - and have to live with them. I also believe climate change is real and that actively supporting politicians who constantly lie is as dumb as dumb can be.Yet there are those who disagree and to them I say, "Good luck with that." But I digress from my point about reading - an important form of communication.

Recently, a writer for "Literary Hub" named Emily Temple calculated that average readers read one book per month; voracious readers read 50 books per year; and super readers read 80 books per year. So, using those numbers, if a person is 30 years of age and is a voracious reader, should they live to be 80 years of age, in all likelihood they will have read over 2,500 books during that half century. That, my friends, is a lot of books. Upon first glance, that may seem unrealistic. But the fact is it is not. I applaud those who are working their way to such a milestone and the choice they make every time they pick up a book. You are the better for it and so, too, is the world around you.            

Invisible Disadvantage

Back in 1776, the same year the United States declared its indendence, a citizen of the country from which the U.S. declared its indepence, economist Adam Smith, introduced the concept of the "invisible hand" of the market place. Smith was a stong believer in unrestricted free trade between nations. His perspective was that the marketplace itself would determine prices and establish its own rules of equity regarding the exchange of goods and services between international trading partners. This came to be known as the theory of absolute advantage. To this day, there are many that remain strong supporters of Smith's view.

As part of this vision, Smith and other economists observed that there are countries that are particularly good at producing a particular thing, thus giving them an advantage over ones that have no specific speciality. Perhaps an example would be the country of Switzerland and its ability to produce watches. The Swiss are international leaders in this regard, thus giving them a bit of an advantage over nations in need of watches or without a particular advantage or speciality of their own. When it comes to communication, it seems there are individuals who bring with them a certain advantage over others as well.

This could include folks with lots of money who can afford to launch expensive advertising or public relations campaigns. Perhaps the nature of their positions gives them a much ore visible bully pulpit than others. Or they may have a recognized and strong level of expertise in a subject that generates strong interest in what they have to say on a given subject. Whatever the reason, when it comes to communicating, they have an advantage. This points to a fundamental challenge when it comes to communicating effectively. Not all participants are equal despite the dynamic of equitable interaction. This might be referred to as communication's invisible disadvantage.

Measuring the Impact of Communication

Over the years, much effort has been put into coming up with ways to measure a country's economic well-being. In these times of globalization - a good thing, I might add -  it makes perfect sense to calculate what kind of success and benefit countries derive from their interactions with each other. The gross national income (GNI) is one example of an economic yardstick. By drawing upon a number of variables, it determines which countries are more economically healthy than others. Purchasing power purity (PPP) is another example. In it, the living standards of a country are determined. Again, this, too, makes sense.

But one thing that neither GNI and PPP adequately do is calculate the well-being of individuals. It was this in mind when Nobel prize winner Amartya Sen created what he called a human development index (HDI). It was Sen's belief that their more important ways to measure the direct impact of globalization. This, he said, includes such variables as a person's opportunities to succeed, how much of a voice an individual has within their country, a country's literacy rate, life expectancy at birth, educational attainment, and how well each person's income helps them meet their needs. Collectively, the HDI attempts to paint a ore accurate and realistic picture of  how much better an individual's life is as result of their country's internal and external efforts.

There is much to appreciate about Sen's effort as it attempts to address the quality of one's life in perhaps a more realistic way than the more traditional GNI and PPP yardsticks do. This is leading me to think that perhaps a similar yardstick might be needed in the field of communication. Given all the communication strategies practiced literally every day by individuals and various entities, it might be time for someone - anyone - to devise some sort of way to gauge how much any of these efforts contribute to our own sense of worth, need to feel valued, be properly informed, and be heard. Perhaps such a yardstick might help reduce the great divide within our country and even the world.        

 

Wanted: Credible Communicators

Back in the nineteenth century, the great statesman Benjamin Disraeli wrote a trilogy of novels. In one, there is a passage in which he describes the great divide between rich folks and poor folks: "Two nations; who are as ignorant of each other's habits, thoughts and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones or inhabitants of different planets; who are formed by a different breeding, are fed by a different food, are ordered by different manners, and are not governed by the same laws." reading that today, I am struck by how well that seems to describe much of the divide currently being experienced nowadays.

I am not necessarily referring to economic differences as much as Disraeli was. Rather, we seem to be witnessing a sizable gap characterized by perceptions, attitude, emotions, and information. Together, they have created a gap which seems unbridgeable. Those not in seats of power are resentful and frustrated and those currently in those positions do not seem all that inclined to make any meaningful adjustments to reduce that which separates the two. Thus, what exists remains so and, in fact, even seems to be growing. It does not take a Disaeli to recognize that such a path, if allowed to continue, will not end in a good way.

What is needed is some great communicating that recognizes the perspective of both camps and then helps the two identify those values and goals which they share. I am aware many will say this is being done. Maybe so. But, then, how come the divide is continuing to fester and grow? Communicating is only as good as the degree of credibility which is attached to it. My sense is neither side views the other as being all that credible. Where, then, are the credible communicators? We need men and women who both speak and listen with empathy and respect and who are recognized as doing so.

Communicating With Those in a Bubble

In recent years when one hears commentary on national issues, the word "bubble" is used a lot. So-and-so is in a bubble or those of one kind of political persuasion or another "live in a bubble." The terms connotes the idea that, intellectually, one is purposely closed-minded when it comes to exposing themselves to new information that might run counter to perceptions or understanding they may have already have. Often, this seems to be particularly as it pertains to specific issues or concepts. Global warming, Planned Parenthood or the rights of gays, lesbians and transgender individuals would be examples of this.   

Without question, all of us love the comfort of our own perspective. How we see things, obviously, is clear to us. We go to bed each night with an opinion and without question wake the next day very happy to see that view has not budged one bit. Does that mean we are in a bubble? Maybe. Does it also mean that we are unwilling to ever step aside that bubble? Maybe but not necessarily. My own sense is people are open to wrapping themselves in a new way of seeing things if they can be convinced their old view is no longer viable. The trick is in connecting with bubble-dwellers in a way that makes those folks want to consider a different perspective.

Make no mistake. This is not an easy thing to do. For example, I am very comfortable with the notion that red M&Ms taste better than any other color and that is all there is to it. Good luck with trying to make me think otherwise. Attempting to do so would be a major communication challenge. But notice I used the word "major" rather than "impossible." Such is the case with many others living in a self-imposed bubble. Validate my opinion. Assure me that you do not think I am ignorant or an idiot. Give me facts. Do so with respect. Do not make me believe I am a bad person. If a communicator can do all this, then they stand a good chance of getting me to revisit the taste of M&Ms.    

Recognizing Interdependence

One of the more sound pieces of advice handed down in recent times was found in a book called "The  Hannover Principles" by William McDonough and Michael Braungart in which they urged readers to "recognize interdependence." Human design, they noted, is entwined with and dependent upon the natural world. While such an observation has been made before by many others, it remains a truism that deserves and I would say even needs repeating. We people seem to have a tendance to lose sight of this piece of reality from time to time. The current mood of nationalism that is dominating much political thinking in the U.S.and elsewhere these days is the latest example.

We will do what we want - what is best for us - without thought of its impact upon others. While this may sound good, it represents short-term thinking that ignores the fact that we are living in a world that we share. Perhaps if we as individuals were literally living are our own planet, then such a philosophy would make sense. But we don't and it doesn't. I live with my wife. Every action I take, therefore, must be taken with her in mind if we are to remain happy and in-sync. Sure, at times that can be frustrating. I am sure it is for her, too.  But such is the responsibility we carry as members of a family unit.

This very much applies to communication. I speak and others hear. My words, regardless of how benign they may be, triggers thoughts and possibly actions on the part of others. Is there any one who does not recognize that? My concern is people may, indeed, recognize this, but they simply do not care. This is dangerous thinking. It ignores our fundamental interdependence that McDonough and Braungart noted. Any time reality is ignored the result, eventually, is not good. We must, therefore, communicate with others in mind just as we much behave that way, too. That may be a burden but it is one we cannot afford to ignore.

Self-Reflection

While growing up, it was my dream to become a professional baseball player. I loved the sport and was quite active in it, playing at all levels of little league and schools. Hardly a day passed when I did not fantasize about running out onto the field in a professional baseball stadium and becoming a star player. But as I reached at my late teens and began competing with players who took the game as, if not more, seriously than me, the reality that maybe - just maybe - I was not good enough to play professionally began occurring to me. Finally, the day came when I asked myself: "Am I good enough to play baseball professionally?"

If my answer had been in the affirmative, then I would have continued to try entering into the professional ranks any way I could. Instead, my answer was "no." It did not mean I loved the game any less or that I no longer picked up a ball and bat and played. But what my response meant was that I no longer was going to move down that path. I had to find a new one. To make a long story short, I eventually did and, even if I do say so myself, I feel as if things worked out just fine. But this did not make my initial question any less significant or tough to answer. It forced me to look at this part of my life as it was rather than how I wanted it to be.    

It is my belief that such a question is something we all need to raise with ourselves when it comes to communicating. I say this because the act of communicating plays such a vital role in every aspect of our lives. It determines how effective we are at our jobs. It dictates the strength of our connection with family and friends. It even plays a key role in how we feel about ourselves. Given that, in asking ourselves "Am I a good communicator?", it is important to do so in the context of  the specific roles we play in our lives: parent, friend, son/daughter, employee, citizen, etc. By asking ourselves such a question and then answering honestly, it is a powerful first-step toward becoming the kind of communicator we want to be. 

Moving Forward

So many of us have so much in common. Whether it is in South Korea where I continue to live and work or in the United States where I will eventually return to retire to a life of family, friends, matinee movies, yard work, and and lots more reading, I am reminded of this truism every day. Small children, for instance, enjoy riding in shopping carts at the grocery store regardless of their home country. People, alas, liter more than they should. Teenagers focus on their iPhones with great intensity, and most everyone displays great tolerance and even patience when it comes to how imperfectly we all communicate from time to time.

Most every day I am on the receiving end of that tolerance in daily conversations with colleagues and friends. The "right" words do not always come out of mouth; or if they do, it is not as quickly as I would prefer. And, to be fair, it is the same when people speak to me. Despite that, we all continue to converse, collaborate and (knock on wood) enjoy each other's company. The meanings we try to impart to each other are, generally, understood. The result is we act accordingly, move forward, and remain close enough in-sync to maintain a reasonable degree of harmony. Overall, I would say that is not a bad way to progress.

Communication is considered a social science, in part, because there is a degree of fuzziness or imprecision to it that, say, mathematics does not have. In math, two plus two is four and that is all their is to it. But when it comes to communicating, people can use incorrect words or mispronounce things, yet still convey their intended meaning. We all want or even need to understand that which surrounds us, yet do so in ways that reflect our own uniqueness. We have our own biases, history, perspectives, etc. that reflect how we see or interpret things. Yet, generally, we connect with a high level of consistency. All this is to say, communication brings out both our acceptance of imprecision and intellectual flexibility to move forward just the same. Not bad.