take-aways

• Successful people are not always the smartest, most attractive or best educated.
• Often, they succeed because they know how to get along well.
• People respond to each other on a subconscious level. Research indicates that “as many as 10,000 units of information flow per second” between individuals.
• Numerous proven techniques can increase your attractiveness and dynamism.
• People learn everything they need to know about you within the first few seconds of meeting you. Meanwhile, you are also forming powerful first impressions.
• You send clear signals about how you feel without saying a word.
• “Fine-tune your smile.”
• To make people feel great about you, focus your conversation on them.
• Many people are as frightened to make small talk as they appear on the stage.
• You will become a far more intelligent speaker if you simply find substitutes for a few “overworked words” such as “smart, nice, pretty or good.”
• we consistently overestimate our ability to judge strangers
  • with the smallest glimmer of information, we judge people we don’t know.
• we are incapable of spotting deception
  • we assume truthfulness until the evidence pointing toward deception is overwhelming.
  • Generally, observers believe that most people are telling the truth. To tip from suspicion to disbelief, observers need an absolutely clear trigger. This could be clear agitation, total avoidance of eye contact or someone struggling to find words when directly accused of cheating. Without that trigger, our suspicions remain just that, and we assume truthfulness.
• Some people are better at spotting deception, but assuming the truth is important for society to function.
  • We can celebrate perceptive skepticism, but for most of us, it doesn’t matter that we can’t spot lies. Defaulting to truth makes sense, and Bernie Madoff and Ana Montes are outliers.
• Life isn’t like an episode of Friends – what you see on people’s faces doesn’t tell the whole story.
  • Transparency is the idea that someone’s demeanour reveals an authentic picture of their feelings. It’s one of the primary expectations we have when judging strangers. The problem is that transparency is often completely misleading.
  • When strangers aren’t transparent, we easily and completely misjudge them.
  • some people simply aren’t transparent. They’re mismatched, or their demeanour doesn’t reflect what they’re thinking.
• Alcohol can make interactions between strangers far worse, with terrible consequences
  • And a murky situation gets even murkier when alcohol is involved. The author believes that alcohol causes people to become myopic. Alcohol makes us disproportionately focus on short-term wants and forget about long-term consequences. Normally, we maintain a balance between the two.
• There are some ways we can get better, and the best way to start is to stop making assumptions
• Humans are ill-equipped to understand strangers. We assume that people tell the truth, so we can’t detect lies. And we believe that we can judge strangers based on little, usually deceptive, information. The result of this misplaced confidence is that we don’t invest enough time and patience in truly listening to and understanding each other.
• evolutionary biologist Charles Darwin believed that similar, easily interpreted expressions – of joy, sadness, fear, surprise, and the like – were consistent for all peoples and cultures. These things are not consistent at all, which explains why people can’t accurately gauge strangers’ emotions or intent across – or even within – cultures
• Circumstances, Conditions and Context
  • Gladwell affirms that you must face the additional problem of context beyond your inability to read strangers’ emotions and your powerful bias to believe what they tell you. Where and when you meet a stranger, he emphasizes, matters.

“Clever Hans, the Counting Horse”

• In Europe during the halcyon years before World War I, “Clever Hans, the counting horse,” was, without a doubt, the most talked-about sensation on the continent. A brilliant entertainer with a unique act, Hans could somehow supply accurate answers to math questions that audience members posed to him. He quickly tapped out the correct answers to any problem – addition, subtraction, multiplication and division – with a hoof. The horse’s owner, Herr von Osten, was always by his side while Hans performed these seemingly miraculous feats – but he never spoke to the horse or signalled him in any way.

• No one had ever seen such an amazing animal! Expanding beyond math, Hans “learned the alphabet.” By tapping his hoof several times for each letter, he would answer questions from audience members concerning the latest news or subjects such as geography and history. Hans always answered every question correctly. Eventually, scientists and other leaders organized a special commission to investigate the “human horse.” They asked von Osten to leave the hall for their test. Then, they had Hans perform his usual math and language wizardry in front of a crowd. But the horse still did not miss an answer, tapping out correct responses to numerous questions from the commission’s leader. No one could stump the brainy Hans.

• The public insisted that investigators form another commission. Members organized a second test in which the questioner whispered questions in Hans’s ear so no one else could hear. This time, Hans could not answer even a single question correctly. Instead of being brilliant, the horse was revealed as a dummkopf! Can you guess how the commission’s members proved Hans was a fraud? Von Osten had taught the horse to read the audience members’ “body-language signals.” As Hans tapped his hoof, people in the audience would exhibit clear signs of tension – straining forward, holding their breath – until the horse reached the correct number. Then they would all relax, at which point von Osten had taught Hans to stop tapping immediately. Hans was “clever” – but not because he was a math genius or geography expert. He simply knew how to take cues for his actions from the subtle responses of the people around him. “Know your audience” is one of the primary rules of effective communications. Hans, the horse, was able to learn this important lesson. Can you?

“How to Talk Like a VIP”

• You can always recognize important people by the commanding, intelligent way they speak. They have confidence, choose the proper words, and don’t use clichés. Follow their lead:
  • “Kill the quick ‘me too!‘” – To impress, avoid immediately matching someone else’s account of a personal experience or preference – say, a love of sailing – with your own story. Let your shared interest come out gracefully during the conversation.
  • “Comm-YOU-nication” – Slip the word “you” into your discourse as often as possible. This focuses the content on the other person and gains his or her attention and approval.
  • Avoid euphemisms – Always speak directly and to the point. The use of “nicey-nice” words makes you appear equivocal and weak.

“How to Be an Insider in Any Crowd”

• To converse well with others, cure yourself of “Silent Outsider Syndrome.” Use the special words and phrases that are common parlance to the people or group that you want to join:
  • “Learn a little ‘gobbledygook’” – People will be impressed with you if you speak in terms they routinely use. Pick up the lingo by listening to others to find out what their special words and phrases mean so you can use them appropriately.
  • Hit their “hot buttons” – Each professional group has provocative issues – for example, doctors get feisty about their relationships with hospitals. Find out these issues, then mention them to spice up your exchanges.
  • “Read their rags” – The best way to gain inside knowledge about a specific field is to read the trade journals that report on it. An hour or two in the library can improve your conversational prowess.

“How to Differentiate the Power of Praise from the Folly of Flattery”

• Back in the 1930s, Dale Carnegie extolled the virtues of praise in his classic bestseller How to Win Friends and Influence People. The power of praise is just as strong today, but praise that does not appear genuine is certain to backfire, so proceed carefully using these helpers:
  • “Grapevine glory” – To praise someone without seeming to be an apple-polisher, speak highly of that person, but not directly to him or her. Instead, voice your compliment to that person’s closest friend or associate. Rest assured that the message will get delivered.
  • “Accidental adulation” – Sneak praise into an otherwise mundane sentence: “Because you are so knowledgeable concerning…, I’m sure you can set the agenda.”
  • “Killer compliments” – Use them whenever you can. For example, you can say, “You are the most honest person I know.”

“How to Direct-Dial Their Hearts”

• You may look great, stand tall, dress in style and feel confident – but how do you project these qualities when you speak over the phone? Ensure that you:
  • “Pump up the volume” – When you speak over the phone, “turn your smiles into sound.” Be animated and project a positive image through your tone of voice.
  • “Name shower” – Repeat the other person’s name over and over. A person’s name is their favourite word.
  • “Oh wow, it’s you” – Always answer your calls in a professional way, then switch to a very sunny, happy demeanour as soon as the caller identifies themselves.

“How to Work a Party Like a Politician Works a Room”

• Always put the “politician’s six-point party checklist” to work when you attend a function:
  • “Who will be there?” – After all, that’s why you’re going, right?
  • “When should I arrive?” – The best advice is to get there early.
  • “What should I take with me?” – At a minimum, you’ll need your business cards.
  • “Why is the party being given?” –Be sure and get the true reason.
  • “Where is the collective mind?” – Will it be a party of financiers or environmentalists?
  • “How am I going to follow up?” – Follow up to confirm the contacts you have made.

“How to Break the Most Treacherous Glass Ceiling of All”

• Gaffes, intemperate or insensitive comments can kill any chance you have to get ahead. To avoid doing damage, keep these strategies in mind:
  • “See no bloopers” – Never comment on the “slips, fumbles and faux pas” of others.
  • “Savor the favour” – If someone offers to do a good deed on your behalf, wait a little before you try to collect it.
  • “Chance encounters are for chitchat” – You have been trying to schedule an appointment to speak to the boss about increasing your salary for weeks. But don’t bring it up when you run into them in a checkout line. If you do, you’ll never get the raise.

Six principles of persuasion

• reciprocity is basically the old biblical principle do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

  • put into action: if you want to get something, give something. The right order is important: offer something first, then ask for what you want
  • it’s possible to use this principle of reciprocity by doing favours for others, helping people, publicly praising others, and generally working in such a way as to build up a bank of social obligations owed to you. Each of these obligations will be settled at some point, probably to your advantage. Of course, if you’re too over the top with this type of behaviour, it will cease to work.

• Authority We tend to follow the advice of experts. We have more Trust in a doctor who is wearing a white coat and displaying diplomas on their wall.

  • building trust and credibility is very important, but it’s also possible to build some of that sense of authority through the recommendations and good words of others. It may be worth asking others to recommend you or recommending others so that they feel a social obligation to recommend you in return.

• consistency We look up to people who are consistent in their words and behaviours.

  • From a persuasion and influence perspective, this means that if I can convince you to act in a minor way in relation to something, then you’ll think of yourself as that type of person and be more likely to act in that way again in the future. You’ll also be more likely to increase your actions in that direction,
  • put into action: don’t follow every trend. Be the consistent one. People will remember you for that.

• consensus Humans are social by nature and generally feel that it’s important to conform to the norms of a social group. This means that when it comes to decision-making, we often look around us to see what others are doing before making our mind up.

  • put into action: if you want someone to do something, show others doing it (“People who brought this book also brought…“)

• scarcity

  • we all want that which is rare, and we are all afraid to lose what we have
  • put into action, it might not be enough to talk about the benefits of your offer. You also need to point out what people will lose if they fail to act. This also holds true if people face change. They are usually scared of what they might lose; therefore, it’s good to tell them what they will lose if they fail to move
  • The less of something there is, the more people tend to want it. This holds true for experiences as well as for material products.
  • From a persuasion and influence perspective, this means that to increase interest in your product or service, you may benefit from reducing its availability (or at least creating a sense of scarcity).

• liking This is the most universal principle. People prefer to say yes to people they like, but who do we like?

  • according to Sealdini, there are three factors
    • we like people who are similar to us
    • we like people who compliment us
    • we like people who cooperate with us towards a common goal
  • “Get in the habit of helping people out and don’t say no big deal says of course; it’s what partners do for each other’ - label what happened an act of partnership.”
  • you simply need to become liked by those around you and those you are looking to persuade or influence. You can do this by cooperating with others, paying others genuine compliments, identifying similarities, and building relationships. The key here is that you need to build these relationships and garner this “liking” before you try to influence others. If you try to become like once you’ve started your efforts to influence, those efforts will fail.

Two rules of meetings - why meetings take so long

• according to Seth Godin, there are only three kinds of meetings

  • information: a meeting in which the participants are informed about something whether they like it or not
  • discussion: a meeting which aims to give input or direction or to receive feedback
  • permission for a meeting in which one side proposes something in the hope that the other says yes (but has the right and the power to say no)

• what often makes meetings frustrating is the fact that different people might think it’s a different kind of meeting

• here are some tips to make meetings run more smoothly. The 15-minute rule

  • Parkinson’s law states that work expands to fill the time available for its completion and not according to how complex it is, for it makes sense to limit the time of meetings incidentally. Studies show that the average person’s attention span is between 10 and 18 minutes; ideally, you should use a timer when it rings. The meeting is over immediately

• the question rule: there are three types of questions that you can ask in a meeting

  • first comprehension questions

  • second questions to support the process, for example, to make sure that everyone has really understood everything and is talking about the same thing and

  • third questions that show how much you know in order to underscore your own position or challenge another person

  • all three types of questions are legitimate, but they should not be mixed: first come comprehension questions, then questions about the process, then debate questions

• The standing rule in many company meetings is held with everybody standing up because it leads to decisions being reached more quickly. Washington University studies showed that when they are standing, people react more readily with enthusiasm, whereas when they are sitting, they tend toward skepticism

• smartphone rule: no smartphones during the meeting

• notes should be made by hand.

• if you want to call a family meeting, turn off the Wi-Fi router and wait in the room where it is located

boss talk - how to talk to your team

• Rule one: don’t criticize

  • this might sound a bit too easygoing, and of course, you have to evaluate your employees’ work. That’s your job, but go easy on the criticism
  • only start deconstructing if you’re prepared to help with the rebuilding
  • keep using “we,” especially when your team has lost

• give praise but not too much

  • go easy on the compliments; otherwise, they lose their effect
  • if you celebrate behaviour that you expect, you are lowering standards
  • whatever you do, don’t give praise simply to please

• practice what you preach

  • pick your battles. Only set standards that are important to you or that you consider to be generally important. You ought to be good at upholding standards that are important to you
  • and if there are standards that you regard as important but find hard to uphold, then you need to learn them yourself and share them with your employees. Nobody can be good at everything
  • as a leader, get used to the idea that you are primarily responsible for the supply of energy, in other words, motivating, advising, stabilizing, providing momentum and letting others shine

The salami tactic - how to carry through every idea

• meetings are known to reveal a person’s character. Generally speaking, there are four personality types and meetings
  • the silent type says nothing is thereby usually proven right and always thinks he or she knows better
  • the opportunist is enthusiastic about every suggestion, especially those made or favoured by the boss
  • the master of the obvious announces the obvious with great conviction as if he or she had just thought it up
  • the naysayers and their purpose in life seem to be to pull apart other people’s suggestions
• how can you get a suggestion past these hellhounds
  • the salami tactic: do not put your suggestion forward all in one go, but serve it in small, easily digestible slices. Instead
    • This portioning method has two advantages: first, the fear of a huge task or bold idea is reduced. Second, a measured presentation allows the other participants to explore and think the idea through. Above all, this tactic does not allow the other participants to recognize your overarching intention. This makes it harder to fight against it
    • if there are ideological riffs, it is better to take small isolated steps than concentrate on the matter at hand, not on the intended outcome
    • and what do you do if someone tries to Salama
      • you simply ask, “Is that everything?”
      • keep on asking until everything is on the table. Only then start negotiating

theory of rhetoric - how to make a good speech in his definitive work rhetoric

• Aristotle wrote that a good speaker has to have three things under control the argument logos the presentation ethos and the audience pathos

• in Aristotle’s day there were only three different types of rhetoric

  • the first was judicial rhetoric which dealt primarily with past events then there was epideactic rhetoric which typically celebrated a person in the present a typical example is a eulogy which Aristotle wrote addresses the mourners rather than the Dead and finally there was deliberative rhetoric such as political oratory in which the speaker attempted to persuade the audience to carry out a certain action in the near future

• Aristotle and later the Roman Cicero and quintillion established a complex five-point plan for writing brilliant speeches which essentially boils down to this

  • everything Aristotle considered rhetoric not as a tool to convince the audience but as an art form to help present a persuasive argument

• below are six rhetorical tools

  • anaphora repetition of a word or phrase typical in political speeches
    • i.e.: I demand Justice I demand understanding I demand
    • inversion reversing the usual word order such as an “infinite is his sorrow” instead of his sorrow is infinite
  • irony saying one thing when you really mean the opposite, i.e: really enjoyed being stuck in that traffic jam
  • rhetorical questions questions that make a statement
    • i.e.: would you like shiny glossy hair?
  • analogies (comparison)
    • i.e.: he stood there like a dying duck in a thunderstorm (banal) or he was as confused as a comma at the end of a sentence (creative)
  • antithesis a contrasting thought to produce tension, i.e.: he was beautiful strong and unhappy
  • read through your text aloud several times
    • one full sheet of A4 is about four minutes of presentation
  • remember to integrate pauses look at your audience, breathe deeply.
  • a good speech is one that induces the listeners to change their minds while giving them the feeling that this change of opinion is their own decision

Storytelling how to make the most boring lecture exciting

• classic fairy tales follow a particular sequence:

  • abstract: how does it begin? (“Once upon a time…“)
  • orientation: who/where/when? (” A king and queen had a daughter”)
  • Complicated action: The problem to be solved (“but all around the castle, a hedge of thorns started to grow…“)
  • resolution: solution (“then he stopped and kissed the sleeping beauty. And she opened her eyes…“)
  • evaluation: What results from it? (“And they lived happily ever after”)
  • coda: what remains (“And the moral of the story…“)

• Aristotle’s theory of rhetoric was already aware of the importance of emotion and speech-making, and in 1984, communication researcher Walter Fisher came up with a radical thesis: people do not want logical arguments. They want good stories

• our life is not an Excel spreadsheet. It is a story with ups and downs

• Fisher’s idea is summed up in his famous narrative Paradigm, which represents a break with classical rhetoric. We do not evaluate a story on the basis of arguments but on the basis of how much we trust or believe in the story (can I identify with the subject or the people) and its coherence (does the story make sense.)

• Chris Anderson, the inventor of Ted, says something similar about the three rules for a perfect Ted Talk

  • 1. Don’t talk about a concept or deficiency or a product. Talk about an idea
  • 2. focus on just one idea
  • 3. talk about the idea in such a way that people will want to tell others about it
  • the next time you have to say something in front of other people, start your talk with this sentence: let me tell you a short story, or on the way here, something strange happened to me

Principal negotiation: how to reach an agreement

• negotiation is the Fine Art of finding a solution to an apparently impossible situation
• one of the best-known negotiating methods, principled negotiation, is based on the book Getting to Yes by Roger Fisher and William L Yuri
• think about a complex situation negotiating your salary with your boss, pocket money with your children, a ransom demanded by a blackmailer, and try to apply the following principles to the situation
  • thing, not person Do not be distracted by whether you like the other person or not
  • similarities, not differences Don’t think I am in the weaker (or stronger) negotiating position. Ask yourself what does the other person need from me? do we have common interests?
  • good enough, not perfect. You should not be aiming for the maximum possible because Perfection is like the Unicorn. It’s rumoured to exist, but nobody has ever seen it
  • have a plan B prepared before negotiations even start. This is called the BATNA principle (best alternative to a negotiated agreement). It offers the best alternative when an agreement can’t be reached
  • there are two schools of thought when it comes to negotiation
    • The first is believing that you have to negotiate “hard” and “conquer” the other side (it’s not enough to win; someone has to lose). The other recommends negotiating softly in order not to put a strain on the relationship
    • principal negotiation falls into the second camp and recommends Cooperative negotiation. Negotiating properly means that everyone gets more than they originally hoped for
    • you must never try to make all the money that’s in a deal. Let the other fellow make some money, too, because if you have a reputation for always making all the money, you won’t have many deals

The feedback method - how to criticize

• feedback is one of the most sensitive processes in communication. It is easy to hurt people with criticism, but false Compliments are also unhelpful. Harsh criticism damages our self-esteem and can lead us to make unwise choices, but flowery compliments often make us too complacent

• as for the person giving the feedback, most people are prone to being critical as it gives them a feeling of superiority. They feel like they need to crush bad or weird ideas

• Feedback can be analyzed along two axes: negative or positive, constructive or destructive. So this gives us four different types of feedback

  • “no” - negative, destructive feedback You are simply told the idea is bad without being given an explanation or offered an alternative. While this can be, at times, effective feedback that seldom changes the behaviour of the receiver
  • “No because…” - negative constructive feedback You are told you are wrong and presented with the correct answer. This is how Old School teaching works
  • “Yeah, but…” - positive destructive feedback Most managers have sooner or later heard about the importance of giving positive feedback, so they start off by saying something positive about your idea to deconstruct afterwards and offer a contrary opinion (“the idea is good, but…“)
  • ”yes and…” - the appreciative response tried to find the one thing in The Proposal that works and build on that
    • this goes back to appreciative inquiry, a method attributed to an American David Cooperider, that involves concentrating on the strengths, positive attributes, and potential of a company or a person rather than weaknesses. According to this Theory, focusing too strongly on the flaws of an idea or project stifles the open and positive approach that is essential for good working practices

• careful of course, we sometimes have to deliver crystal clear or even harsh feedback, but people learn better if offered constructive feedback. We know this from brainstorming sessions where the flow and fun increase, and the more positive the exchange.

  • collaboration, it seems, dies when the response is negative, and ideas are killed before they are explored

• Whenever you are about to give feedback, ask yourself, how can I make this idea better? Rather than Why is this idea bad

groupthink - what happens when everyone has the same opinion

• Janice called the phenomenon that occurs when the desire for group consensus is stronger than the urge to express an unpopular opinion “group think.” If this happens, the group is at risk of making very poor decisions and even more, if many people are too sure of the same thing, they become radical and imprudent
  • researchers have observed this phenomenon among jury members: the greater the consensus, the harsher the judgment, and the surer the jury is that its verdict is correct
• groupthink typically occurs when there is
  • High group cohesiveness
  • high pressure to make a good decision
  • strong persuasive directive leadership
• how can we avoid groupthink
  • “Give a high priority to airing objections and doubts.” In other words, encourage all group members to speak their minds even and especially if the opinion is unpopular
  • divide your team into two informed competing teams to study the same problem and compare results
  • When all think alike, no one is thinking - Walter Lippman

The power method - when the force is with you

• warning: even if you prefer to convince people with good arguments rather than by mean tactics, you should know these tricks because they are bound to be used against you

• Never argue hesitantly

  • if you are unsure about something, try not to show it to others. Doubt and hesitation will only dilute your arguments. Your adversary will see an opportunity to pounce

• so only speak up when you’re sure you want to follow through with your argument and stand your ground even if your plan is flawed

• we forgive bold people their mistakes but have no confidence in doubters.

• talk less

  • you should not try to convince the other person by talking a lot
  • the more you talk, the more interchangeable and ordinary your arguments seem
  • every Triumph that you achieve through words is, in reality, a pyrrhic Victory because nobody likes to be argued into a corner

• act ignorant

  • we tend to be dazzled by intelligence and charisma. Try the opposite: make your adversary feel clever. He or she will be flattered and become inattentive. When your opponent’s guard drops, you can attack
  • acting stupid is one of the oldest stratagems around. As they say in China, masquerade as a pig to kill the Tiger

• give up

  • if you can’t convince somebody, reassess your own situation: what will it cost me if I give up now
  • a smiling confession of your own defeat comes across as more self-assured than sullenness, and what’s more, the less interest you show, the less satisfied your adversary will feel

Intercultural communication - how to negotiate abroad

• the more you get to know a culture the more black and white turns to Gray
• in order to get to grips with a culture it is not enough to master the language as cultural idiosyncrasies are more apparent in the way we communicate then in what we communicate.
• three main cultural types: the linear active, the multi-active and the reactive
  • 1. the linear active who include most of Western Europe and the USA talk about as much as they listen, have fairly restrained body language, are polite but direct like to deal in facts, and place value on the written word. They don’t do two things at once
  • 2. the multi-active such as Mediterraneans or Saudi Arabians are loquacious, gesticulate a lot, are emotional, juggle with facts, place value on the spoken word and do many things at the same time.
  • 3. the reactive such as the Japanese Chinese and Koreans speak less and try to get their counterpart to speak first they have very subtle body language
    • are courteous and indirect
    • are non-confrontational and place value on face-to-face communication
• but contrary to what our schematic categorization might suggest there are no pure alignments, only spectrums. Indians for example are hybrid they are both reactive and multi-active. Canada is on the borderline between linear active and reactive
• linear active: if you’re intrigued by the questions “what? when? how many?
• multi-active: if you’re intrigued by “how” people communicate and relate to each other
• reactive if you’re convinced by who says it and their experience and authority

self-talk - how to (de)motivate ourselves

• there are two kinds of self-talk
  • the first is the unself-conscious Babbling of little children as they play or the thinking aloud of contestants in TV shows such as Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? These types of inner monologue were called “egocentric speech” by the developmental psychologist Gene Piaget. he believed they were a sign of cognitive immaturity. Today we know that thinking aloud is an excellent method for ordering our thoughts and improving concentration
  • the second type of self-talk is the inner dialogue we comment on our own behavior in a similar way to a sports commentator reporting on events during a football match the only difference being that the footballers can’t hear the comments, whereas we constantly have our internal moderator in our year. In the field of psychology this is considered to be a healthy form of self-evaluation. However a distinction is made between positive and negative self-talk
• negative self-talk typically contains one of these thoughts
  • generalization: I have already been left twice people will always leave me
  • rash conclusions: why doesn’t she call I think she doesn’t like me
  • self-blame: I should have done differently or I’m a bad father
• positive self-talk is about breaking through the above negative patterns of thought it’s not about convincing yourself that life is great but rather about freeing yourself from a cycle of negative thinking for example if you say “I’ll never manage it,” ask yourself instead: “what can I do in order to manage it?”
• in a nutshell self-talk serves two different functions first concentration and second motivation
• talking to myself is the only way I can be sure of intelligent conversation - Edmund Blackadder

active listening - how we are (not always) all ears

• paradoxically in our age of constant communication the raw material of conversation has actually disappeared: listening. Genuine real listening is a rare commodity and a great gift, because you are giving to the person you are listening to your most valuable asset your attention

• listen don’t talk

  • the radio host Celeste Hadley put “it brilliantly in a tedx speech if they’re talking about having lost a family member don’t start talking about the time you lost a family member if they’re talking about the trouble they’re having at work don’t tell them about how much you hate your job it’s not the same it’s never the same all experiences are individual and more importantly it’s not about you

• don’t finish the other persons…

  • some people have a tendency of impatiently finishing the sentence or thought of the person they are talking to. Although very slow thinking and talking can be irritating don’t interrupt even if you think it might show empathy

• your body language says a lot

  • look the other person in the eye but don’t stare. Nod - but only if you want to agree with what they are saying or show that you have understood something important

• notice the little things

  • listen out for details and what they are saying and pick up on these later. This makes it easier to ask questions (“you mentioned that you spent a lot of time as a child at your Grandmother’s what kind of relationship did you have with her?”). And it lets the other person know that you were really listening

• be a friend not a judge

  • resist the impulse of giving the other person advice - unless of course they specifically ask for it. instead, take the conversation back to an exciting important part of the story: “Earlier, you said that…”
  • take the person away from the smooth surface to deeper levels: “how was it for you when you…?” or encourage the person to keep talking by simply asking: “and what happen next?”

• the most romantic gift to listen to another’s anxieties for one hour without judgment or Solutions as an analyst might - Alain de bottan

small talk - how to start a conversation with strangers

• 

• ask for advice

  • people love giving advice so start your small talk with the request for advice “I want to buy a smartphone or a cocktail or a book but I can’t decide which one”. Most people will happily open up then thank them for the tip and the other person will feel like a fireman who has successfully extinguished a fire
  • the psychology behind this if you ask for advice you create intimacy intimacy makes rejection difficult

• ask a second question

  • we often ask something and then wait for the other person to ask something back this is not a conversation instead use the old reporter trick and ask a second question if you just asked “where did you grow up?” then a good follow-up question might be “how has that place shaped you”

• don’t ask what do you do for a living?

  • there are two kinds of people those who like to talk about their job and go on and on about it and those who are ashamed of their job hate it or don’t have one the latter are reluctant to talk about this topic the author Gretchen Rubin suggests this simple but powerful tweak to the usual “what do you do for a living?” job question: “what’s keeping you busy these days” now the other person can choose what to talk about

• don’t start a conversation about things that interest you

  • most people like to talk about themselves this leads to us not listening any more but simply waiting for our turn to speak but a conversation is not a PowerPoint presentation don’t pitch your topics rather be the one person in the group who is interested in the other person’s topics as Bill Nye put it everyone you’ll ever meet knows something that you don’t

• listen

  • the way people deal with you depends on how you present yourself: arrogant, worldly wise or dull posturing brings out the same behavior in your

counterpart the Supreme rule when making small talk comes from the radio host Celeste Hedley enter every conversation assuming that you have something to learn

• **people forget what they talked about with you but not how they felt in your presence **
• we have two ears and only one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak Epictetus

Teach Yourself to Become Charming and Attractive

• The most accomplished public speakers, actors, politicians and salespeople were not born charismatic. They worked hard to learn how to speak effectively, be appealing, and charm and persuade others. How did they achieve their goals? The answer is simple: They each applied certain remarkably helpful rules of personal communication and, thus, developed themselves into winning and attractive personalities. Yes, such rules exist. Furthermore, they are easy to learn and employ. You can use these secrets and tricks to re-create yourself almost magically into a person of great charm and poise and someone everyone will admire and want to be near.

“How to Intrigue Everyone Without Saying a Word”

• First impressions are the most lasting. “The way you look and the way you move” provide 80% of the information people use to form their initial impressions of you. To make sure people get an overwhelmingly positive impression when they first meet you, use the following tips:
  • Smile slowly – Don’t smile as soon as you meet someone. People will assume that you do this with everyone. Instead, wait a second or two, look long and deep at the person you are meeting, then smile big. This brief delay signals that you are not smiling because it is socially desirable, but because you see something special in this particular person that you really like.
  • “Sticky eyes” – Show people that you truly can’t take your eyes off of them. Maintain perfect eye contact while you speak with them.
  • “The big baby pivot” – When you meet someone, pivot directly toward him or her with a “total-body turn,” flash a genuine smile, and show the undivided and very special attention you would give to a young child who has just crawled up into your lap.

“How to Know What to Say After You Say, ‘Hi’”

• Many people, including senior executives, motivational speakers and great performers, hate to make small talk. But it is an art that you can easily muster if you follow these tactics:
  • The “mood match” – Don’t speak with someone else until you first sample his or her mood. Once you have, ensure that your opening words “match that mood.” This is particularly important for salespeople.
  • “Wear a ‘whatzit’” – Starting a conversation with a stranger is not easy. One way to get the ball rolling is to wear something distinctive that he or she is sure to comment upon – a novel tie-tack, a piece of antique jewelry, or a special lapel pin or button.
  • The “swivelling spotlight” – People love to speak about themselves. Imagine a giant spotlight that rotates to light up your counterpart. Keep the spotlight – and focus – on that person and not yourself. He or she will think you are great for doing so.

“How to Sound Like You’re Peas in a Pod”

• Generally, people are more comfortable with those with similar values or interests. Your job is to provoke “sensations of similarity” in the thoughts of those you want to get to know:
  • “Join the movement” – Does your conversational partner make herky-jerky movements or languid and graceful ones? Subtly match that person’s movements to make him, or her feel more comfortable with you on a subliminal basis. But don’t go overboard, or you are almost sure to offend.
  • “Echoing” – What special words and phrases does your conversational partner use to describe something? “Echo” your partner and use those words yourself.
  • “The premature ‘we’” – When you pepper your sentences with the word “we,” you establish a subconscious bond with other people involved.

the iceberg model - what happens below the surface

• we could say that divisible conscious part of a discussion is the factual level (what we say or what we talk about) while the unconscious part is the interpersonal level (how we say it and what we really mean) see lasswells communication model and what’s the exaxium theory this means we can control the factual, level we can select our words consciously but our gestures facial expression and tone of voice will betray our unconscious secret hopes, repressed conflicts, traumatic experiences ,base motives, and animal instincts, and appeal to the other person’s unconscious. The interpersonal level decides how we will be perceived and how we perceive others
• the more we know about another person’s values patterns of behavior motives in other words the more we see of the iceberg the better we can understand the person’s words and actions.
• The best way to lower the water line of your opponent or partner is to show more of yourself if you for example want someone to admit something start by talking honestly about your own mistakes
• fear and hope are alike underneath - Richard Ford

the spiral of Silence - why we don’t dare state our opinion

• German social scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann hypothesis: the willingness of people to voice there opinion in public dwindles in situations where they believe that the majority opinion is different from their own. in other words we do not like to be of a different opinion to others if we notice that the group majority has a different opinion to ours we remain silent this phenomenon is called the spiral of silence and can be explained by these six points of which the last two are arguably the most important:

• most people have a fear of isolation and observe the behavior of others to assess which opinions will be accepted or rejected We Fear isolation more than being wrong wrote Alexis de Taco in the 19th century

• we exert pressure on each other we pull a face roll our eyes or turn away when someone says something that does not comply with the prevailing opinion

• fear of isolation and a pressure to conform occur unconsciously we do not think about the extent to which we are Guided by public opinion

• we tend to conceal our opinion if we think that it will expose us to group pressure. If we feel public support, however, we tend to express our opinion loudly and clearly

• if consensus on a subject prevails in a group, it is unlikely that a spiral of silence will begin

• the number of people who share an opinion is not necessarily significant a minority opinion can appear to be a majority opinion if it’s proponents appear confident enough and represent their opinion in public forcefully

• we become quieter if we believe that we are in the minority

the speech act Theory - how words can trigger actions

• in day-to-day life we distinguish between doing and talking but there is in fact no difference. speaking is also an action.
• The Thesis: sentences have a propositional meaning (this is the information contained in the sentence), which can be “true” or “false” but sentences also have an elocutionary meaning. This means that we are doing something when we speak including something essential (“doing something in saying something”). Examples include requests, warnings, threats, recommendations. Such an elocution can succeed or fail -

for example if you don’t take the speaker seriously, the act of speaking has failed. Then there is a third dimension the persecution. Here it is about the extent to which whatever was said has consequences - so whether the person being addressed acts on what is said or has a change of mind because of it (“doing something by saying something”)

• The speech Act Theory explained in two sentences “what do we do when we speak” and “what impact do we have when we speak?”

the social judgment Theory - which of our opinions never change

• a question that continues to preoccupy researchers into communication is this when do people allow themselves to be persuaded about something? and when not? why is it that some of our attitudes are deeply ingrained and not up for discussion? (e.g.: allegiance to a particular football club) while we change others at the drop of a hat? (favorite TV series for example )

• an explanation is offered by the social judgment Theory according to this Theory there are three factors that play a role in persuading us to change our opinion

  • The Anchor Point this is our basic preferred attitude this attitude is hard to budge and we are unlikely to change it regardless of what information we are given so for example if we were to discover that the players of our favorite football team were manipulating games we might be shocked but it wouldn’t put an end to our long love affair
  • room for maneuver here it is about which alternative attitudes we find acceptable regardless of Our Own. These are attitudes that we can accept without having to hoist our anchor. This approach can lead to a change of opinion in the long term
  • ego involvement the most complicated part what does our ego have to say? take the death penalty for example which clearly contradicts the Anchor Point “human rights”, leaving little room for maneuver. But it is conceivable that if we were personally affected by a murder we might feel vengeful towards the perpetrator and change our mind at least briefly

• the stronger our anchor, i.e., our firm position on an issue, the harder it is to be persuaded by a different opinion. The stronger you pull at another person’s anchor the stronger their resistance. (How can you can succeed anyway see six principles of persuasion)

• **if you can’t change your mind, then you’re not using it **

the story Matrix - how to apologize properly so that the other person forgives and forgets

• use I sentences

  • apologizing means taking on full responsibility for something sentences like I’m sorry that your feelings were hurt or I’m sorry that you’re so angry should be avoided because what you’re implying is it doesn’t have anything to do with me that your feelings are hurt say it like it is I’m sorry that I hurt your feelings. According to the research a person is most likely to forgive and forget if you admit full responsibility for what you did

• don’t justify your actions

  • it is a natural reflex to try to justify your own actions but also an idiotic one. Because a justification is an effective denial of the apology the following sentences are particularly counterproductive: “come on it wasn’t that bad” or “I can’t help it” the injured person will be more inclined to forgive if you come up with a reason rather than a justification try to explain your action without being defensive. Most effective of all iron explanation and an admission of guilt combined

• avoid but sentences

  • an apology in which the word but crops up is almost never understood as an apology but as an excuse

avoid at all costs

• don’t ask for forgiveness

  • asking for forgiveness is rarely effective. Nobody likes to Grant absolution

• change yourself

  • even the most honest apology is worthless if you repeat the same mistake three times. Making an apology is above all a commitment to making a change in an offer to make amends

• when it comes to apologies keep in mind there are only two ways you can apologize begrudgingly or sincerely, choose the latter

White Lies - how to answer the question how do I look

• the truth is, all people lie. In certain situations - such as when we are under pressure, have to justify ourselves, or want to make a good impression - we tend more towards fibbing and telling Tales than when we feel relaxed and self-secure. But, from an ethical point of view not every lie is bad. You might for example lie in order to protect someone. In communication Theory lies fall into two categories: “do I benefit from the lie” or “does the person I lied to benefit?” This results in four different outcomes
• white lie - only the person lied to benefits this is a fine selfless lie which you risk potential loss to help someone out here you typically put yourself in the position of the person and for example Defender existence of Santa Claus and the knowledge that the LIE will be exposed in due time this altruistic lie gives us a good feeling
• gray lie both the liar and the person lied to benefit “you’ve lost weight” gray lies are often part of cultural norms. In many situations when you ask “how are you?” you expect a lie in response “thank you things are great”
• black lie only the liar benefits although you are guilty you reject all accusations: “no I didn’t take the money” it is often also a bold promise a proactive lie if “I am elected I will never raise taxes…” Here bare-faced lying is used to your own advantage
• red lie no one benefits saying something with complete awareness that the other person knows the statement to be false, even if you

sometimes end up also inflicting damage on yourself the “largest audience ever to witness in inauguration”

• if you tell the truth you don’t have to remember anything - Mark Twain

the six-word rule - how to sum up a whole life in six words

• Hemmingway wrote novel in 6 words: “For sale, baby shoes, never worn”
• “Can you tell your life story in six words?”
• George Saunders summed life up beautifully: “started small, grew, peaked, shrunk, vanished”
• The six word rule is not a rejection of sprawling, convoluted sentences or endless digressions, but before writing (or speaking), you should ask yourself these questions: what do I really want to say and can I say it more succinctly?
• if it’s important, keep it short

watzlawick’s axiom theory - how relationships fail

• an axiom is a valid truth that needs no proof

• at the end of the 1960s the communication theorist Paul waslowick together with other researchers came up with five axioms to explain how interpersonal communication especially in relationships fails

• you cannot not communicate a man

  • comes home, sits down, stares into space, and is silent, his wife looks at him and asks him how he is, he says nothing and yet he communicates something. It is immediately clear that something must have happened even if you say nothing you are saying something

• all communication has a relationship aspect and a Content aspect

  • the content aspect is what we say, the relationship aspect includes how we say things but also who says something see Schultz fontans communication model, who says something and how it is said always way heavier than what is said. if we are offended by a complete stranger it affects us less than if our partner offends us
  • also keep in mind Albert Moravian 7% 38% 55% rule, if we are talking to someone about our feelings this is the impact our words, tone of voice and body language have: our words are 7% our tone of voice 38% and our body language 55% responsible for whether that person likes us

• communication is always about cause and effect

  • a woman is annoyed because her partner is grumbling the man is grumbling because the woman is annoyed in other words we sell them quarrel with ourselves, it will always take two to tango

• human communication makes use of analog and digital modalities

  • in Watson’s terms digital means verbally and analog means non-verbally, in other words eye rolling, a smug smile, ambiguous intonation. If the two levels do not correlate then we’re not on the same page

• communication is symmetric or complementary

  • relationships between partners are either symmetrical (equal) or complementary (unequal)
  • symmetric means that we talk at eye level (in the relationship) in the relationship complementary means that there is a kind of hierarchy (for example between teacher and pupil). If we do not agree whether the communication is complementary or symmetrical it becomes problematic

• everyone hears what you say friends listen to what you say best friends listen to what you don’t say

proust’s questionnaire how to ask good questions

• 

• the explanation for this is simple and truthful and can be summed up with this rule: we do not appreciate those who are brilliant but those who make us feel brilliant but because

• it is extremely difficult to ask the right question in the right situation a small crib sheet soon circulated around European salons it consisted of questions that seemed innocent but which beared the soul such as who would you prefer to be? how would you like to die? and which characteristics do you most appreciate in a man?

• Proust’s questions have three key qualities

  • they are open questions that you cannot answer with yes or no
  • the questions require no prior knowledge, in other words there are no right or wrong answers only honest ones
  • three they are questions that Center on your counterpart rather than on you.

• we all admire people who give good answers but we admire those who ask good questions even more. The people we remember most are the ones who really listen

non-violent communication why we find it difficult to be friendly

• language of the Jackal causes the speaker to feel Superior and the person being addressed to feel bad typical examples of Jackal language:

  • analysis “that’s wrong because…”
  • criticism: the mistake you made was that you…
  • interpretations you do that because…
  • appraisals your smart/lazy, you’re right/wrong…
  • threats if you don’t do it immediately I’ll have to…

• according to Rosenberg statements like these are “desires and disguise” because we have not learned to ask for something politely or to express our wishes constructively we resort to aggressive language and aggression leads to counter-aggression or submissive subjugation

• giraffe language on the other hand works like this:

  • observe without evaluating: “you always look out of the window when I want to talk to you”
  • acknowledge and Define your own or others feelings: “I’m worried”
  • acknowledge needs and take them seriously: “I want to know how you are doing”
  • Express clear and achievable objectives based on these needs: “please tell me what you need so that we can talk about it”

• we are by Nature prone to pass judgment, and what’s more, it is easier to blame someone else than to think about why something happened

• the essence of normal communication we all like to be right the essence of non-violent communication we are better off if we resolve a dispute then if we win it or in the words of Marshall Rosenberg: would you rather be right… or happy…?

The Cooperative principle - how we should express ourselves in order to be understood

• people’s three biggest fears loving someone without being loved in return; searching for friends and not finding any; saying something and not being understood

• British philosopher Paul Grice 1913-88 dedicated his life to the third problem and in 1975 finally formulated the so-called Cooperative principle a basic rule for effective communication:

  • “make your conversational contributions such as is required at the stage at which it occurs by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged”

• Grace proposed 4 conversational maxims

  • maxim of quantity: say enough for your counterpart to understand but don’t say too much or you will cause confusion
  • maximum quality tell the truth don’t speculate don’t dupe the person into believing something different
  • maximum of relevance don’t say anything irrelevant don’t change the subject
  • maximum of manner avoid ambiguity vagueness verbosity and volatility and stick to a logical argument

• if we follow these maxims then as a general rule we will be understood but what happens if we don’t follow them which is the case in most of our conversations

  • we can violate the maxims without being noticed that’s called “lying” (“did you wreck the car?” “no I didn’t”) - although you did
  • we can violate the maxims deliberately by saying something else but Expecting The Listener to understand the message correctly that’s called “flouting” (a typical form is irony you look out of the window to see the storm intensify you then turn to your friend and say what wonderful weather)
  • we can refrain from cooperation that’s called “opting out” (if you say “my lips are sealed”, this implies you know something but won’t talk about it and this will end all communication)

• only say what is true and important and express it clearly and simply

the expectancy violations Theory how much distance we keep from other people

• according to burgoon the following rules apply in the Western World with regard to keeping our distance

  • intimate space (Elbow Room) up to 20 inches. within this space we expect to be touched by the other person it is reserved for close family lovers and pets
  • personal space 20-50 inches. The typical distance we keep from somebody we are talking to
  • social space 40-140 inches. The distance we keep from people we do not know, with whom we do not communicate but whom we have nothing against
  • public space 140 inches or more. This distance is best explained if we ask ourselves which people do we avoid?

• of course it is not only about distance but also about physical and I contact. if someone turns away from us while we are speaking it violates our expectations of the conversation. this is most easily observed in romantic relationships where the usage of smartphones and social media is for many a strong sign of divided attention and a source for trouble

• the distance we keep is also influenced by cultural and situational norms. Different distance rules apply to dancing in a club and studying in a Library. In Switzerland, people greet one another with three little kisses, in the USA, this would be regarded as too close for comfort

• When in Rome do as the Romans do

Schultz von thun’s communication model - why we should talk to each other about how we talk to each other

• according to Thun every message has four layers:

  • content what I am informing myself about
  • appeal what I want to achieve
  • relationship my relationship to the receiver
  • self-disclosure what I show of myself

• the way we understand messages is determined by the sender’s end receiver’s previous history, the context, the tone and many other nonverbal

signals. How can we solve misunderstandings? by talking to each other about how to talk to each other, in other words, by practicing “meta communication.” Because good communication occurs when intention end understanding are in harmony

• what is thought is not always said; what is said is not always heard; what is heard is not always understood; what is understood is not always agreed; what is agreed is not always done; what is done is not always done again - Konrad Lorenz

second order observation - how your therapist talks to you

• A first order Observer sees the world as it appears to him or her the world is simply there. The second order Observer, however, ascribes what the first order Observer sees to how it is seen. Important*: we cannot observe ourselves observing (which is also why therapists can’t treat themselves). This is often referred to as the “blind spot”
• in other words we are unaware of the way in which we observe; we cannot see that we cannot see so by identifying someone’s blind spot, the second order Observer might open up A New Perspective, and make that person aware, for example, of the fact that he or she could just as easily see something differently
• despite the fact that most people constantly think about themselves it is impossible to observe yourself while doing (or thinking) something. We can only train ourselves to be more aware of moments when we act or think according to old and bad habits. But in order to recognize these patterns we need a second Observer
• we can’t see that we are seeing something

transactional analysis - which I do you use to communicate

• here are two of the greatest interpreters of human communication
  • Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) the founder of psychoanalysis believed that hidden pleasures and fears

from our childhood are the motivation behind our communication problems

• the psychiatrist Eric Byrne (1910-70) however believed that you do not have to go on a painful journey into your past to get to know yourself; it is enough to observe yourself in communication with others
• According to Berne, it all starts with the three ego States we adopt in relation to others:
  • 1. the parent-ego state: we all are a little like our parents this is evident when we patronize others or tell them what they should or should not do. But also when we act thoughtfully empathically or helpfully
  • 2. the adult ego State we act like adults when we communicate in a considered controlled and relaxed way. In other words when we treat the other party respectfully and respond to criticism factually and constructively
  • 3. the child ego State we also carry and ask the child that we once were we are unrepentant defiant silly or anxious but positive qualities such as imagination curiosity and learning are also evident in our childlike communication
• all states occur in one person so what uses transactional analysis in

practice? when we communicate it is always from one of these ego States. We are not always aware of this but it is most evident when we observe ourselves. Let’s suppose that a proposal we put forward in a discussion is rejected by the group, if we react in an offended way or respond defiantly, we are in child mode, if we weigh things up rationally and realize that our proposal was no good, we are in the adult mode. But if we argue morally that the others are wrong because we are right we are in parent mode.

• if communication does not work you should ask yourself what state am I and at the moment parent ego, adult ego or child ego

parenting tips - how to talk to Children even if you don’t have any of your own

• here are some tips from parenting experts

  • be a role model actions speak louder than words. A child won’t understand that he shouldn’t scream if you scream at him.
  • correct content, not form the child says “I draw horsey” That’s fine, as long as she is drawing a horse
  • be consistent “no” means “no” - even when the child is having a tantrum at the supermarket checkout. Loophole only make threats that you can go back on without losing face. So don’t say: “if you don’t stop right away we won’t go away on holiday”
  • Implement threats immediately children learn more quickly and effectively if you carry out your threats straight away. Instead of taking away a toy once for a whole week (long duration, small effect) it is better to take away the toy 10 times for two minutes (small duration, big effect)
  • praise and action not the child “what you’re doing is great” is better then “you’re great”
  • ignore bad behavior when a child does not behave according to your expectations, but isn’t putting himself or others in danger, it is better to ignore him then to rebuke him ()“selective attention”)
  • offer Alternatives give your child different options but never more than two and only if an alternative makes sense there is no alternative to teeth brushing
  • tell a child what she should do and not what she shouldn’t do: it’s better to say “please slow down” than “don’t run”
  • ask questions that can be answered “how was school today?” is as difficult for your child to answer as it would be for you to answer “how was march to April 2014 for you?”
  • adults with children once, too these rules of communication apply to all ages

• it is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men - Frederick Douglass

l’essprit de l’escalier - when we think of the best arguments

• the term l’esprit de l’escalier (‘staircase wit’) refers to opinions and ideas that we express with clear polished pithiness - and which always occur to us too late.
• in Psychology this phenomenon when your nerves fail under pressure is called choking you choke on the expectations
• many Studies have dealt with this phenomenon and have all come to the same conclusion paralysis by analysis. If you start thinking, you lose. If you try to be quick-witted, you can’t think of anything to say. When you go

for that all-important penalty kick your confidence plummets. Psychologists recommend four tricks:

• one expose yourself repeatedly to the same situation (so-called practice Under Pressure), whereby the situation loses its uniqueness

• wait 5 seconds before answering - your answer might not be any clever but it comes across as weightier

• not so easy: imagine that you’re not in an interview but sitting in the pub With Friends

• keep in mind that although being quick-witted can be impressive in it interview it is seldom required in most jobs

• “Nothing in life is as important as you think it is while you are thinking about it” - Daniel Kahneman

words and meanings

the framing effect - what kind of image we have of the world

• in communication there is a fundamental rule: how something is said and by whom - the “narrative context”, or frame - determines how something is understood.
• in his seminal work the Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Goffman uses the imagery of theater and acting to describe human social interaction. He believes that we each adapt our Behavior to each frame and are therefore a different person in each situation. This means that there is no such thing as authenticity we are one person when we are at work, another when we talk to our parents, and quite another when we are lost in a foreign city and have to communicate with strangers
• Daniel Kahneman and Amos firsky famously showed how different ways of phrasing frame a dilemma and affect people’s responses to a choice. This logic is used to great effect in advertising. For example, two yogurts are on sale one is “90% fat-free” and the other is touted as having a “10% fat-content” although both contain equal quantities of fat, people tend to choose the yogurt advertised is “almost fat-free” because the frame for the yogurt purports that it is a fat free healthier product. The bottom line is: we seldom make rational choices
• there are no objective or authentic messages. Everything that is being communicated is always framed. And if you want to decode a message, try to understand the frame

mcluhan’s media Theory - why the medium is the message

• the Canadian media scholar Marshall mcluhan 1911-80 who generally shunned the Limelight became the world’s most talked about intellectual in 1967 this was because he had summed up the media Revolution the transition from

print to TV in a single sentence “the medium is the message”

• it does not mean what you might initially think I that the medium has become more important than its message

a hint mcluhan’s theories never focus on the obvious clear-cut or logical) Rather the sentence means that the medium is not important because of its message but because it can change our behavior, our thinking and our lives

• “we shape our tools and the tools shape us” wrote mcluhan. He also wrote: “people don’t really read newspapers they just climb into them every morning like into a hot bath”W was there ever a better description for the internet? In his time McLean was taken more seriously by hippies then academics this was a double misunderstanding, because, as a conservative Catholic he was opposed to the media developments he described
• the news doesn’t change us; the medium does: take a minute and make a list the five things that have changed in your behavior since using a smartphone. Now ask yourself what changes do you regret. And finally what would it take to undo them?

the FOMO phenomenon - what happens if you don’t look at your smartphone

• the internet has multiplied the number of ways in which we communicate. While we still communicate one to one in (a personal email for example), we now also often communicate one to many (e.g, in a Facebook post store

WhatsApp group message)

• one of the most important elements of online communication is self-presentation we only want to show our best side. We post photos of perfectly prepared dishes, perfect holidays, perfect parties, perfect scores.
• When looking at social media we also see the Apparently perfect lives of our friends which we are not part of and how these lives are being liked and shared scientists call the “uneasy and sometimes all-consuming feeling that we’re missing out that our peers are doing or in possession of more or something better than we are” -

fear of missing out, or fomo

• people under the age of 35 suffer more from this phenomenon, men more than women, teenagers more than adults, unhappy more than happy people. To clarify: it’s not a question of really missing out on something; it’s about the feeling of having missed out on something

• In the 20th century “I think, therefore I” am no longer applies, but rather “others are thinking of me therefore I am” - Peter Sloterdijk

lasswell’s communication model - how to recognize fake news

• If you want to analyze fake news, a good starting point is the lighthearted model developed by the American sociologist Harold D Laswell in 1948 which still works astonishingly well today: for example to separate fakes from facts the formula is: “who says what in which channel to whom with what effect”
• who? by answering who said it, we divert our attention to the sender. Laswell called this “control analysis”: who is talking? what is their aim? who are their allies?
• what? by looking at “what” is being said, we give attention to the actual message (the “content analysis”) to identify the aim behind the message, we can, for example, ask how are women or people of color represented? what does the phrasing imply?
• which by answering the “which channel” question we make a “media analysis”: why are they using this channel? how can they afford it? who paid for it?
• to whom the “audience analysis” can, for example, reveal something about the aim of the sender: why are they talking specifically to these people?
• with what effect with the “effect analysis” we ask: how did the audience react? what does this tell us about the sender?
• Laswell was concerned with the effects of mass media but his message also applies to interpersonal communication his formula is a simple way to sharpen your senses for propaganda wherever it’s coming from

the uses and gratifications Theory - what we want when we’re online

• according to gratification theory, media consumption was an active voluntary decision and consequently did not ask what media does to us, but what we do with media. Sociologist Elihu Katz identified five reasons why we use media and what we use it for
• information and education we consume media to discover what has happen but also to educate ourselves
• entertainment we consume media for our emotional or aesthetic pleasure
• identification we consume media because we identify with people we see on screen
• integration and social interaction we consume media so that later we can talk about what we saw or heard with others. Today, the so-called second screen comes into play we watch TV and at the same time consume via second screen like a smartphone with a consequence that we are alone and yet not lonely
• escapism we consume media to escape reality. Everyone is familiar with this behavior: we immerse ourselves

in a film a game or the internet and forget about ourselves.

• it is important to notice that according to this Theory media do not force us into anything we decide for ourselves what we want to use
• when I die I want my Tombstone to say free Wi-Fi so people will visit more often

the encoding/decoding model - how messages can be understood differently

• a small but significant question: is what I can hear the same as what you are saying?
• Stuart Hall (1932-2014) investigate into idea further, he believed not only that we are capable of misunderstanding but that we play active role in understanding, per se. We interpret, or “decode”, the same message, differently, depending on our social class, our level of knowledge, and our cultural background but above all, the way we understand a message also depends on how we want to understand it
• the encoding/decoding model contradicts the classic sender receiver model, according to which the recipient

plays a passive role. Hall argued that the way we receive a message is an active and never clear-cut process so that the message can always be understood differently. The sender encodes the message with a particular intention. The receiver decodes the message in order to understand it. And this decoding can happen in three different ways

• dominant hegemonic: the desired reading - we understand the message the way it was intended

• oppositional we oppose or dismiss the intended meaning

• negotiated a combination of the two

• a message is more than just what is said. It changes depending on how it is understood

• let’s put this into practice: if you are a leader, always make your team repeat to you how they have understood your message. (That is, by the way, the reason why co-pilots always repeat what they just heard the pilot say)

visual communication - how we interpret signs

• when we want to communicate something, we use signs - words, gestures, facial expressions, formulas, symbols or traffic signs - that the other person has to translate into meaning. Semiotics is the study of science it is

a cross-section of Sciences from the disciplines of psychology, philosophy, sociology, Linguistics, computer science, design, art and Mathematics. The bottom line is we find signs everywhere we come across culture rather than nature

• the key points in brief:
  • some signs the swastika a traffic light the Nike Swoosh are easy to spot and more legible than words we see them and understand what is meant. A story, a rating, a command, or a message springs to mind
  • perception in most people proceeds from image to text. We remember drawings Better Than Words, recognize patterns and representations more than in sentences
  • some of the most important semioticians believe that all the following are signs, a Rolls-Royce in front of the door, a blue sky, a hundred dollar note, open shoelaces, a half empty or half full glass of water, a magic formula, a traffic jam on the highway, a sunset. Nothing can be perceived merely as what it is. It will always have to be interpreted by the viewer as a sign of something
• “the visual is like the political: everyone thinks they understand something about it, and to an extent this is true” So says the German professor of mass communication Marion G Muller she makes sin important point about the design of signs and symbols: they are complex but need to be comprehensible otherwise there can be no communication.
• most people understand complicated matter better through images than in words we remember pictures better than text and are more likely to recognize patterns and images than in sentences

euphemisms - how we obfuscate with language

• speaking in euphemisms is a form of linguistic whitewashing. Governments prefer to speak of enhanced interrogation methods rather than torture. The company’s spokesman will not say that staff are being dismissed but that the company is restructuring. Products are a bargain not cheap, if we tell a lie we are simply “stretching the truth” And when we are broke we can give it the fancy expression “negative cash flow”. The opposite of a euphemism - when you give something a negative meaning - is called a dysphemism: someone with strong political views will immediately become an extremist
• euphemisms are the stealth bombers of rhetoric at first glance they are not visible but their attacks are Insidious by the time you become aware of them the damage is already done. The Nazis loved euphemisms: “land consolidation” instead of expulsion, “labor camp” instead of concentration Camp, “special action” instead of killing
• euphemisms crop up in almost all political and corporate communications; for example, a town hall

meeting might suggest a friendly local Gathering where everyone can contribute, but in fact the CEO just wants to get a particular message across. Downsizing suggests the sort of inevitability to making a company somewhat Cozier in size without mentioning job cuts

• euphemisms are the mother tongue of manipulation, as a rule of thumb, if someone doesn’t use straight language, don’t act straight away, pause before acting

sophism - how you can explain practically anything with spurious correlations

• in ancient Greece debate was Central to the forming of opinions a distinction between good and bad reasoning was made:

  • good reasoning aims to convince, but it also lets itself be convinced, simply put, it is the search for truth
  • bad reasoning has no interest in the truth; it is simply about wanting to be right

• Plato called bad reasoning “sophistic”. The sophists claim to be able to justify any position to reasoning and logic. They aimed at defeating their opponents and debates using rhetorical strategies and logical arguments. The

sophists were unpopular despised, and successful

• ”most of you will have heard the maxim “correlation does not imply causation”, just because two variables have a statistical relationship with each other does not mean that one is responsible for the other. For instance, ice cream sales and forest fires are correlated because both occur more often in the summer heat but there is no causation; you don’t set a patch of the Montana brush on fire when you buy a pint of Haagen-Dazs” - Nate silver

the cultivation Theory - how the media corroborates our opinions

• one of the most frequently cited communication theories is George gerbner’s cultivation Theory from 1976 which claims that people who watch a lot of Television are more likely to cultivate the belief that reality corresponds with what they are seeing on TV. He argued that watching a lot of Television changes our perception of reality and causes anxiety the
• it is important to remember that we prefer to watch things we enjoy - as is demonstrated most clearly by the

filter bubble effect on the internet, algorithms try to predict what information we will be looking for based on our interests and opinions. That way there is little chance of being convinced by a different opinion, because we are unlikely to be served any alternative views. When it comes to decision making this kind of self-confirming information proves a huge risk

• if you like apples and spend hours watching a TV program about pairs you won’t suddenly prefer pairs afterwards but if you already like pears and spend hours watching a program about pairs you will like pears even more afterwards

the standpoint Theory what opinion has to do with power

• everyone has a voice but not everyone is heard the voices that Prevail are called “hegemonic”. The creation of hegemony has little to do with democracy and everything to do with power.
  • it is not a question of who has something legitimate or important to say but always of who has sufficient resources and influence in a society to define their opinion as legitimate or important
  • the hegemonic perspective is considered neutral anything that deviates from it is seen as an exception and ascribed to others.
  • the hegemonic view claims not to represent a specific point of view position or life experience but rather to represent things as simply “the way they are”
• Donna haraway and Sandra Harding believes that a voice or standpoint cannot be objective or neutral or exist outside a specific social context.
• bottom line if you believe that you hold an objective opinion: ask yourself what other points of view were excluded so that yours could prevail
• if you want to make sure that every voice in the room is heard you can ask your team not to express their opinion about a given topic but rather brainstorm different possible opinions that way sooner or later even though unheard voices will appear on the flip chart and once they are up there they can be discussed

the peak-end rule - what we remember from a conversation

• here’s a question: how do we know if a presentation a job interview or a

date went well?

• we make an assessment based only on two parts of the experience
  • the peak - i.e. the part of the experience, that was most extreme either (pleasant or unpleasant)
  • the end - i.e. whether it got better or worse at the end (this is important: even a small Improvement can

make the date seem like an okay experience, whereas a poor ending will ruin an otherwise great evening)

• so when it comes to communication it is of course important how we start a meeting, how we set the tone, how we break the ice. But, according to kahneman’s work, maybe we should start focusing on how we want to end the whole damn thing
• I don’t care about opening sentences all I care about is the last sentence it’s the sentence the reader will go to bed with - Elfriede Jelinek

Quotes

“There are two kinds of people in this life: Those who walk into a room and say, ‘Well, here I am!’ And those who walk in and say, ‘Ahh, there you are’.”

“No man would listen to you talk if he didn’t know it was his turn next.”

If I can convince you of one thing in this book, let it be this: Strangers are not easy.

When we confront a stranger we have to substitute an idea – a stereotype – for direct experience. And that stereotype is wrong all too often.

We think we can easily see into the hearts of others based on the flimsiest of clues.

everyone hears what you say friends listen to what you say best friends listen to what you don’t say

we all admire people who give good answers but we admire those who ask good questions even more. The people we remember most are the ones who really listen

the essence of normal communication we all like to be right the essence of non-violent communication we are better off if we resolve a dispute then if we win it or in the words of Marshall Rosenberg: would you rather be right… or happy…?

References

• https://www.amazon.ca/How-Talk-Anyone-Success-Relationships/dp/B07232KF1C
• https://www.amazon.ca/Talking-Strangers-Should-about-People-ebook/dp/B07NDKVWZW
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6oHdQlMxuo
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeW0a_pF_fM