System Models of Communication

Taking a completely different approach, some communications theorists have developed systems models. They exist in almost as many variations as there are researchers studying them.

One barrier to communication is simply the overwhelming amount of it. Advertisers, charities, customers, family, friends, the Internet, newspapers, peers, salesmen, service providers, snail mail, strangers, subordinates, superiors, politicians, radio, and television barrage us with messages.³ Senders compete for attention, but recipients choose which messages to attend to, risking conflict by missing important information. Messages received are subject to misinterpretation, perhaps because they are poorly worded or ambiguous, perhaps because they use words that mean different things to different people.

The likelihood of misunderstanding increases the greater the language, class, and cultural differences between sender and receiver. In a humorous but undoubtedly apocryphal story (Chernev & Reinfeld, 1948), a plumber passed on his discovery to the Bureau of Standards that hydrochloric acid was great for opening clogged drains. The Bureau replied, “The efficiency of hydrochloric acid is indisputable, but the corrosive residue is incompatible with metallic permanence.” The plumber thanked the Bureau for its approval, leading to another letter saying, “We cannot assume responsibility for the production of toxic and noxious residue with hydrochloric acid and suggest you use an alternative procedure.” The plumber again thanked the Bureau, which replied, “Don’t use hydrochloric acid.

In international conflicts where there is much dependence on translators, there are many opportunities for misunderstanding. Many words have multiple meanings, and translators do not always get the right sense. Humor and wordplay seldom translate well. One relevant example is the oft-heard expression, “the exception proves the rule.” It only takes a moment’s thought to realize how absurd that is, yet people often repeat it as gospel. It stems from a mistranslation of the Latin verb “probar” as “prove” instead of “test,” the meaning intended in the original Latin. Reflecting the principle of falsification (Chapter 1), “the exception tests the rule” makes sense.

Many factors affect ability to understand. Age, intelligence, and health have only academic interest because there is little each of us can do to change them (although considering them for purposes such as assembling teams often makes sense). The major factor that individuals can control stems from the “speech-thought differential.” People speak about 100 words a minute (a good number to keep in mind when asked to give a speech in a particular amount of time) but think at 400-500 words a minute. That means people can simultaneously listen to a speaker and think about other things. It is why your attention drifts during lectures. If you train yourself to use the differential to evaluate and restate what your opponent is saying, you will listen more efficiently.

Active (or reflective or vocalized) listening uses paraphrasing, reflecting feelings or meaning, and summarizing to build relationships and to make sure you understand your opponents before responding. It is a time-tested device that usually improves even the most antagonistic climate because it implies that you really want to understand the concerns of the people with whom you are talking. It helps prevent mistakes, because opponents can clarify anything you have misunderstood before you act on it.

Empathic listening can be honest (when you care about the opponent) or tactical (when you pretend to care). The literature on empathy is as ambiguous as it is extensive, partly because the term has two distinct meanings. The first is viewing the world from the perspective of the other person, captured in the folk saying about not judging people until you have walked a mile in their shoes. Translated into a practical technique, try to imagine how an opponent could honestly believe a fact that you think false, and then to imagine how you could accept it. Imagine, say, a union unexpectedly demanding a doubling of wages, a radical departure from its usual demand for an increase of 5-7%. Instead of dismissing the proposal, which will only worsen the conflict, you might ask yourself what level of increased productivity it would take to work. Develop a counter-proposal accordingly, knowing that it will involve changes (such as replacing a large part of the work force with robots) that will be unacceptable to the union, but will establish a basis for continued negotiation and provide the union with a face-saving way to moderate its demand.

The second, and probably more common meaning of “empathy,” is sensitivity to feelings. This is why President Clinton’s saying “I feel your pain” was so effective. This sense requires taking account of verbal, nonverbal, and situation-al clues to understand feelings. The ability to do so is useful because people often conceal as much as they reveal, or try. Among the clues that someone is being deceptive are a change in the rate or pitch of speech, a change in eye contact, a nervous movement of the feet, legs, or hands, turning away from the listener, or tensing of muscles in the face or hand. However, interpreting body language is not an exact science, and may even be a pseudo-science. Because these signals can indicate stress instead of lying, vary in meaning from culture to culture, or even be meaningless, confirm suspicions by questioning or other methods before acting on them. Of course, “white lies” intended to prevent hurt feelings should not be probed, lest they result in unnecessary conflict (Nemko 2004).