Good Communication

First, I'll repeat here something I wrote this morning in a comment on a friend's Facebook post (with minor editing).  Then I'll follow it with comments in addition to the original writings.

The original post I responded to lamented the inability of some people to disagree without feeling threatened, or even to listen well and learn from disparate views.  One person who commented made it clear that he disliked disagreements on Facebook because of how it made reading non-verbal signals impossible.  He left all discussions the minute he sensed an argument brewing.  My writing was a reply to this commenter's viewpoint, but related also to the original post.

********************
________________, I don't know you, and from what you write here, I think I'd find you easy to converse with. Your perspective has validity. Non-verbal communication is important and often helpful. I do, however, have a bit of a beef with the idea that in-person discussions are always far superior to in-writing discussions. I hear this often, but it's not always been my experience. 

In writing, I have a lot more time to think ahead about what I'm "saying" than in a personal conversation. I can organize it to make it understandable. I can edit it to make it less offensive. I can swap out words to make sure that they are easiest for others to understand--if not necessarily the first words that come to my mind. 

For me, perhaps one of the biggest benefits is that what was "said" is document-able. I've suffered in the past from more-powerful-people-than-I saying "you said . . . " --things I can't believe I said, because that's not how I felt. I can only assume that I conveyed something erroneous unintentionally, or they misunderstood my words. It's the powerful person's perception that stands, however, if the conversation is ever recounted by the other person. 

If others in a conversation sense feeling in my words, they sometimes assign labels to those feelings that are very different from the ones I would use. What they see as anger, for example, might be my desperate efforts to keep from dissolving in tears of hopelessness and grief. In writing, anyone can see what I "said," minus the interpretations of other "listeners."

While writing takes more time than talking--for the writer, it takes less time for the reader than a spoken conversation. I like that about something I wish to communicate. In writing, I can do it at my time expense--without demanding time in the other person's schedule to hear me out. They can read my writing at their convenience.

Perhaps only in ___________'s online "living room" would your and my contributions to this conversation even be possible. Since it is someone else's living room, however, and not mine, I apologize for taking up this much space for this long, and I will try to exit gracefully now.

********************

I note that the apostle Paul made much use of written communication, even on sensitive and personal matters.  Some of the time he did not have the option of personal communication--when he was in prison, for example.  At other times,  he must have done it for efficiency's sake--when he wanted to communicate the same things to people who were geographically scattered.  Although it's hard to imagine that Paul had any idea that his words would still be known and cherished almost two centuries after he wrote them, he may have idealized his words having more permanence than if they had simply been uttered verbally.

One of God's primary ways of communicating with us is through the written word.

I've learned a lot from hearing about the communication difficulties that people with Asperger's Syndrome face.  These people blend far more easily into a crowd than do people who have autism, a condition on the same spectrum as Asperger's, but they have significant challenges nonetheless.  For them, non-verbal cues in conversation are entirely unintelligible, unless their awareness has been intentionally and painstakingly developed.  I can identify with some of that difficulty.

I think some of the teaching we've heard in recent years about the importance of face to face communication and the inferiority of written communication is yet another unfortunate Bill Gothard legacy.  From his bully pulpit we heard scriptures freighted with personal elaborations that gave face to face communication out-sized importance. That he personally failed miserably to heed the concerns of people who approached him personally--to his great detriment, and the detriment of many who trusted him--adds no credibility to his particular spin on the matter.

In spite of what may seem to be my downplaying the importance of face to face communication, I can think of only a very few circumstances under which I would choose not to participate in a verbal discussion or conversation if invited to do so.  Part of the reason for that is simple courtesy.  Not everyone finds written communication easy.  For them, it's likely as hazard-prone as I view face to face communication to be.  It's fair for me to accommodate their preference when possible.  I can think,  however, of times when refusal to talk makes some sense.

With only a few exceptions (I have to feel very safe) I refuse to talk to a man about a disagreement without Hiromi also in on the conversation.  Even then, I won't likely do it if no one else is close by.  Written communication takes away much of the awkwardness of communicating across gender lines.

Hiromi has been known to refuse to meet for a conversation on sensitive issues because he knows his English-as-a-second-language limitations almost guarantee that he will miss a lot of what goes on, and he will find it impossible to express himself clearly.   He prefers written communication for this reason.

Maybe we would all do well to appreciate efforts to communicate honestly, kindly, and constructively, without becoming unduly opinionated about how it happens.