Communication, Modulation, and Standardization...

Today at FLI...

...I dealt with some communication disturbances; however, I have a feeling these disturbances are not over yet because similar ones have occurred for what is now the third time and are shedding light on a recurring and unhealthy pattern.  I prayed about it.  I sought counsel.  I took time to be silent and wait upon the Lord.  I sought more counsel.  I consulted experts.  I set appointments to preempt the next strike before it happens.  And I drew some comparisons while thinking through all these things in light of the existing problems - then parsed them out below in a journal entry.  I am an external processor; it is my modus operandi. Much of this is actually for me (because it is necessary to get this issue off my chest so I can focus on my homework for the night) but I post it publicly because 1.) I value transparency in relationship, and 2.) it allows others to better understand and relate to what I am dealing with in this season of my journey in life at Focus.

Several weeks ago in Marriage and Family Studies we learned about- and took a quiz on- emotional intelligence (the Emotional Intelligence Quotient, EIQ or EQ for short, as opposed to IQ, the Intelligence Quotient).  Based on the extensive work by Daniel Goleman and others, we launched into discussion about how EQ has been studied and its relationship to success in general - but also specifically how it relates to relational success.  Having the ability to be aware of how you come across to other people while being confident and unafraid to be true to yourself along with how you relate to others helps to define one's EQ according to Queendom, one of the a few online administers of a free and standardized EQ battery.

(Image borrowed from The Natural Learning Company. All Rights Reserved ©2010,
who referenced the chart from an earlier chart by Salovey & Mayer, 1990,
titled The Conceptualisation of Emotional Intelligence.)

If high EQ is more closely correlated with general and overall success in life than simple IQ, then the correlation holds true, that in general, if you find a group of fairly successful people, the EQ of that success group will be on average higher than that of the general public.  That said, if you typically deal in circles of successful people, you will be dealing with people of higher average EQ.  This connection was curicial to understanding some of the communal integration differences I've been experiencing since I arrived at focus 8 weeks ago, as I've noticed this thought running through my head quite often: I'm not able to fill my usual role in a given group here as I usually do in most other places I've ever found myself.  This is odd... why is this?

This correllary understanding was crucial, as I think it has finally served to answer this disparity of communal bonding experiences.  For example, if my community back at my home institution is made up of individuals who have achieved a moderate degree of success in their academic lives, are relatively ambitious, driven and/or highly motivated to succeed, then it is fairly accurate to say the Rensselaer community as a whole is made up of a group of fairly well-adjusted individuals with a high EQ.  Being immersed in this college microcosm where higher IQ’s and EQ’s are common for long enough can then falsely lead someone to think of this higher level as average and normal.  This poor assumption can lead to problems when, the immersed individual suddenly emerges from this select microcosm and into the real – the everyday world.  This could become culture shock in a number of ways – common symptoms might be to think of the rest of the world as developed to a lesser degree, or less mature than what is perceived to be “normal” based on a “shifted normal” of the microcosm to which one is accustomed.  Assumptions – and worse, second-natured assumptions – they get you every time.  Sobering, isn’t it? You can’t know what you don’t know, until it is brought to light through something you do know.

Similarity of communication style precipitates good communication.  Good communication lays the foundation for good understanding, and without, often leads to misunderstanding.  Reciprocating a given communication style or preference is a method of communication I both identified as helpful and began to practice years ago because I saw firstly how much it improved mutual understanding and accelerated relational trust and ties.  Over the years I’ve worked on and developed a fairly proficient repertoire of communication styles to facilitate a wide variety of people and their communication preferences.  As a result, I’ve been able to build relationship with people from all walks of life and from a diversity of ages, experiences, cultures, and backgrounds.   

Differences in communication style is a lot like frequency modulation:
  both mediums carry signals, are dependent upon a transceiver to be properly "tuned" to the
right "frequency" for correct operation, and where transmissions can be hampered
by many factors, including transmission errors, interference disturbances, & receiver errors.

Given this rich background I feel very blessed to have understood this foundational communication principle so many years ago that I have now met what I can best tell as over 50 thousand people throughout the entirety of my life thus far – and I’ve had the privilege of getting along with a vast majority of them.  But, as today and other days recently have seen, none of us is beyond leanring how to deal with new and different issues.  Now, from my experiences in communication over the years I could make several statistically significant observations about the people groups and demographics of the relationships I’ve been able to establish – some better than others – but I will be brief in those observations, as that is not my point here. My point is to recognize the source of the recurring issues, pray and seek counsel, and develop a working plan with hope for resolving the issues in a peaceable manner.  The observations are blocked out, below:

In summary, I’ve found my native communication style and preferences at home in the middle-aged adult demographic, but that does not mean 1) that I get along with all middle-aged adults, or that I have explicit difficulty communicating with other age groups.  What I do find interesting, is that I have consistently had more difficulty communicating with and relating to high school, college-age, and young professional age groups specifically when they are also peer groups than any other group at any other time.  This is interesting, because if the “in my peer group” filter is removed (i.e., relating to college-age individuals while in high school, or relating to high-school aged individuals while in college) these difficulties almost disappear.  All this to conclude: it is the combination of a “peer group” and “Generation Me” that seem to exhibit the majority of communication difficulties in my experience.   This is highly unfortunate, because, whether I like it or not, I was born into the tail end of Generation X and the early part of Generation Me, and while born slightly closer to Generation X, I’ve been more associated with Generation Y (the “Me” Generation), therefore, it is my generation.  And it will be with me for the rest of my life.

I’m also grateful for books by people like Deborah Tannen, professor of linguistics at Georgotown University, who make it their job to deal in these very areas of communication styles, differences, and difficulties.  I'm also glad I had a short discussion with Professor Mr. Steve Lee this afternoon, learning that there are apparently 9 possible places for a communication breakdown to occur between two people!  Nine!  Now maybe I don't feel so bad - there are so many ways in which communication can go wrong.  Boy is there a lot to be learned yet.  Please pray for mercy and patience on the part of all involved - we need it!

In the mean time, I'm not without action: it looks like it is time to dig out “That’s Not What I Meant!” from my bookshelf and buy a copy of “You Just Don’t Understand!” for aid in these current communication connundrums - or maybe "First Aid" would better describe their role after what's been happening in my small group recently.  These books both deal in the interpretation of others’ communication signals and preferences, but more importantly, identify common pitfalls.  In the upcoming weeks I'm also going to need to learn how to adapt relational preferential dichotomies (Myers-Briggs), love language (Chapman), Strengths 2.0 (Gallop), and EQ (Queendom) to the communication "soup" if you will.  Hopefully, with new ingredients in the communication soup there will be enough electrolytes to conduct a meaningful and measurable signal within the challenge demographic, and specifically, the small group.

~AK