Monday, July 28, 2014
Communication Basics: Being Satisfied (A Tutoring Story)
C. S. Lewis once said we are far too easily pleased. I think we would agree that this also means people are far too easily satisfied. I tend to agree with him. That is, if I can believe the opinions of some of my students when I was a tutor. I asked one of my smarter tutoring student to give me an assessment on his fellow students.
Communication Basics: Being Ready (Tutoring in a Trilingual Context)
On one occasion I was called in to tutor a young student from a trilingual home situation. One parent spoke French as their first language. The other spoke Spanish as their first language. English in a private school was going to be a challenge. Thankfully, the assessment I did (that had been passed along to me by another tutor) on that occasion pointed directly at the challenge of English to this young person's mind.
I also functioned with the rule that it is best to work on their struggles in the context of their books and assignments from school without me adding further material. I always felt that extras could overwhelm the student through violating the K.I.S.S. (Kept It Simple Silly) principle. I also felt that their context needed to be real. I had to see what they were seeing.
So I had this student read from the text and then tell me in their own words what it meant. The student read eloquently for their age, but understood little of what they read. So I worked hard to raise the level of their comprehension through using not my current far better method of ARWAT, but using traditional grammar of all things. But it worked despite my shortcomings.
I'll never forget the day I was let go. It was bittersweet. I had accomplished what I set out to do. I had raised the level of their comprehension and the span of their comprehension. Her grades demonstrated their readiness for the challenge of English. All the grades were going up.
I guess when they are ready to go it alone, I've got to be ready to let go. It truly was exhilarating and bitter at the same time. But I could tell by the look on their face that they felt differently about themselves. Maybe they now felt accepted by their teachers and peers because of their new level of school performance.
Knowing that family, I bet you that student never looked back again. It is funny what a little acceptance and a little logical understanding of a third language can do to a person's life. Take care to know where acceptable is for you.
Sincerely,
Jon
I also functioned with the rule that it is best to work on their struggles in the context of their books and assignments from school without me adding further material. I always felt that extras could overwhelm the student through violating the K.I.S.S. (Kept It Simple Silly) principle. I also felt that their context needed to be real. I had to see what they were seeing.
So I had this student read from the text and then tell me in their own words what it meant. The student read eloquently for their age, but understood little of what they read. So I worked hard to raise the level of their comprehension through using not my current far better method of ARWAT, but using traditional grammar of all things. But it worked despite my shortcomings.
I'll never forget the day I was let go. It was bittersweet. I had accomplished what I set out to do. I had raised the level of their comprehension and the span of their comprehension. Her grades demonstrated their readiness for the challenge of English. All the grades were going up.
I guess when they are ready to go it alone, I've got to be ready to let go. It truly was exhilarating and bitter at the same time. But I could tell by the look on their face that they felt differently about themselves. Maybe they now felt accepted by their teachers and peers because of their new level of school performance.
Knowing that family, I bet you that student never looked back again. It is funny what a little acceptance and a little logical understanding of a third language can do to a person's life. Take care to know where acceptable is for you.
Sincerely,
Jon
Communications Basics: Be Seeing (A story of Refereeing)
When I became a referee after having been a player and a coach previously, it opened my eyes to how difficult being a referee was. But I didn't realize then how important a job the referee had, when it came to dealing with anger. I'm not talking player anger, I'm talking about fan anger.
It was at a tournament of some kind when I first ran into a fan who tried his best to frazzle me by berating my knowledge of the game of basketball. I remember at one point taking out the officiating manual and pointing out to him that the rules had changed. Anyway, the angry shouts over every supposed mistake I made in the game got to the point that others were telling me I had every right to remove him from the gym.
I felt instead I should give him some slack since I too at one time had been harder on officials than they deserved, so I gave this gentlemen a break. I know, he wasn't behaving like a gentleman.
A few years later, I was no longer wearing my officials uniform and was in a new position as a program director at a camp, when you might guess came in the door with a large young contingent. I recognized him. I never asked him, if he recognized me. He probably did.
But you know we became very good friends. I guess using a soft answer to turn away wrath really does work. I kept my peace and for not throwing him out on an occasion, I made a friend.
We've all probably been there at some time. Really angry at someone. And what did we do? Well, at least some of the time we probably made ourselves look rather unintelligent. We weren't seeing our anger or someone else's anger. And in the end the emotion of peace is linked to the logic of things. But in the end where these two meet, it comes down to us seeing things from another significant person's point of view.
If I had not seen how that man could be so angry, then I think we would not have become friends. I would have instead likely raised his anger to a whole new level. I'm glad I was able to see, to keep my peace, and to keep a friend. Unfortunately, I have not always done as well as I did that time. Take care and watch your seeing. Make sure you see what you ought to see.
Sincerely,
Jon
It was at a tournament of some kind when I first ran into a fan who tried his best to frazzle me by berating my knowledge of the game of basketball. I remember at one point taking out the officiating manual and pointing out to him that the rules had changed. Anyway, the angry shouts over every supposed mistake I made in the game got to the point that others were telling me I had every right to remove him from the gym.
I felt instead I should give him some slack since I too at one time had been harder on officials than they deserved, so I gave this gentlemen a break. I know, he wasn't behaving like a gentleman.
A few years later, I was no longer wearing my officials uniform and was in a new position as a program director at a camp, when you might guess came in the door with a large young contingent. I recognized him. I never asked him, if he recognized me. He probably did.
But you know we became very good friends. I guess using a soft answer to turn away wrath really does work. I kept my peace and for not throwing him out on an occasion, I made a friend.
We've all probably been there at some time. Really angry at someone. And what did we do? Well, at least some of the time we probably made ourselves look rather unintelligent. We weren't seeing our anger or someone else's anger. And in the end the emotion of peace is linked to the logic of things. But in the end where these two meet, it comes down to us seeing things from another significant person's point of view.
If I had not seen how that man could be so angry, then I think we would not have become friends. I would have instead likely raised his anger to a whole new level. I'm glad I was able to see, to keep my peace, and to keep a friend. Unfortunately, I have not always done as well as I did that time. Take care and watch your seeing. Make sure you see what you ought to see.
Sincerely,
Jon
Communication Basics: Being Willing: (A Tutoring Story)
Some of my best experiences come from one-on-one tutoring. What is especially helpful is to know that for young minds the emotions are especially paramount based on the development stages of Fowler and others. In all my tutoring, I always assess the student and parents before I agree to take on an assignment. I perform a basic SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis and then determine whether or not I can help or if they need someone else.
During the start of my tutoring contact, the general parent plea is help my child do better in school. The general plea of the student is help me do better, so my teachers and my parents will get off my back. I say the latter a little tongue in cheek. They seriously just want to be able to do the task that the school is asking them to perform. They are usually very willing to take me on as long as I indicate what it is that they need and they agree with that assessment and the realize I can also provide what they need to their satisfaction.
Because here I am referring to things in a more confidential setting in the case of tutoring, I am not going to use names. If I did that, it might be harder for me to find students to tutor. I've tutored in California and the Midwest and it can be really gratifying.
On one occasion, I did have a young student for whom friendship was particularly important. It came down to counseling them through the issue of a supposed best friend who wasn't very friendly. They needed a little coaxing to help them be willing to find another best friend. That experience of letting go of a not so good best friend, helped that student flourish, but while they were not willing to let go of the not so good friend, their grades were suffering. Once this change happened where there was a change in friends, this student experienced more the joy and the connections with other students that feed that joy. I helped her reduce her grief at school.
It was fun afterward to watch this young student joyfully jump into their seat happy to learn. Sometimes all you do is give a person a reason to smile again, by helping them to let go of those who are barriers to their life rather than openings for joy.
One other quick note on this student relevant to the struggles of students today. I shared with the student a saying: "If you chase two rabbits, then both will escape". It helped them then to focus enough on each assignment rather than suffering from significant distractions. They even ran around the house teaching the rest of the family this principle. Sometimes tutoring has its own rewards.
One last part of this story. So as usual, I worked myself out of my job and the student became strong enough to handle what was needed on their own. Every parent apologizes to me as a tutor, when they say I am no longer needed. They don't realize that this is my greatest badge of honor: "I don't need you anymore, because I can now do it on my own". I'm so glad they can. That is my satisfaction.
Sincerely,
Jon
During the start of my tutoring contact, the general parent plea is help my child do better in school. The general plea of the student is help me do better, so my teachers and my parents will get off my back. I say the latter a little tongue in cheek. They seriously just want to be able to do the task that the school is asking them to perform. They are usually very willing to take me on as long as I indicate what it is that they need and they agree with that assessment and the realize I can also provide what they need to their satisfaction.
Because here I am referring to things in a more confidential setting in the case of tutoring, I am not going to use names. If I did that, it might be harder for me to find students to tutor. I've tutored in California and the Midwest and it can be really gratifying.
On one occasion, I did have a young student for whom friendship was particularly important. It came down to counseling them through the issue of a supposed best friend who wasn't very friendly. They needed a little coaxing to help them be willing to find another best friend. That experience of letting go of a not so good best friend, helped that student flourish, but while they were not willing to let go of the not so good friend, their grades were suffering. Once this change happened where there was a change in friends, this student experienced more the joy and the connections with other students that feed that joy. I helped her reduce her grief at school.
It was fun afterward to watch this young student joyfully jump into their seat happy to learn. Sometimes all you do is give a person a reason to smile again, by helping them to let go of those who are barriers to their life rather than openings for joy.
One other quick note on this student relevant to the struggles of students today. I shared with the student a saying: "If you chase two rabbits, then both will escape". It helped them then to focus enough on each assignment rather than suffering from significant distractions. They even ran around the house teaching the rest of the family this principle. Sometimes tutoring has its own rewards.
One last part of this story. So as usual, I worked myself out of my job and the student became strong enough to handle what was needed on their own. Every parent apologizes to me as a tutor, when they say I am no longer needed. They don't realize that this is my greatest badge of honor: "I don't need you anymore, because I can now do it on my own". I'm so glad they can. That is my satisfaction.
Sincerely,
Jon
Communication Basics: Being Able (A Football Story)
Sometimes in life a great person comes into your life who possesses what they need. You only release that thing in them. That was the case with one of my favorite players, Derrick Williams. Derrick was the kid with the infectious smile. But that infectious smile was in danger of turning into a serious frown. One day in practice, I noticed Derrick was being picked on for holding up our practices. He was last in nearly every drill. I really liked this kid and I shared with coach that I thought there was the possibility he might quit if we didn't address what he was facing in practice head on. The head coach and I, Marty Smith, at the time devised a plan. Marty knew something about students being picked on since he worked with the developmentally disabled. Derrick did have those kinds of issues, but his teammates weren't helping things at that point.
We decided to speak to Derrick alone to start. He told us how he had come out for football as part of an agreement with his parents as a way to lose weight. We asked him if he was able to do what we asked: Finish every drill to the best of his ability. We weren't asking him to start beating his teammates. We were asking him to beat his old self. We were asking him to never stop and to never quit. He agreed he could do that. We told him we would then be addressing the team and the expectations we had for them. I almost get emotional all over again trying to re-tell this story.
Likely the next day of practice, we addressed the players and told them that Derrick had promised us to never quit on the drills and that he would give it his all. So they were expected to encourage him. I don't think even Marty was ready for what was to come.
I didn't realize it then, but we gave Derrick a boost in confidence by letting him know he could do what we were asking. We also added to that a logical visible strategy of what we wanted him to do and it was doable for him. He did what we asked.
The results were beyond what I expected as well. I started watching the guys gradually get stronger in their encouragement of Derrick. I think it might have started to become a competition on who could shout the loudest for him in words of encouragement. There were too those slaps of encouragement that football players love. The atmosphere changed from one of jeering to cheering. It was the icing on the cake, but again there was something more that was to happen.
If I recall correctly, it was a year later when I saw a football player running toward me who I eventually recognized was Derrick. He was smiling from one side of his face to the other with that effectious smile of his. Here was a guy now shaped no longer widest in the middle, but widest in the shoulders and narrowest in the middle. It was amazing what he had done.
He had his emotional confidence. He had his logical "to do" plan. Who knows what Derrick might be able to accomplish. I can't wait to find out what you can do also. Take care.
Sincerely,
Jon
We decided to speak to Derrick alone to start. He told us how he had come out for football as part of an agreement with his parents as a way to lose weight. We asked him if he was able to do what we asked: Finish every drill to the best of his ability. We weren't asking him to start beating his teammates. We were asking him to beat his old self. We were asking him to never stop and to never quit. He agreed he could do that. We told him we would then be addressing the team and the expectations we had for them. I almost get emotional all over again trying to re-tell this story.
Likely the next day of practice, we addressed the players and told them that Derrick had promised us to never quit on the drills and that he would give it his all. So they were expected to encourage him. I don't think even Marty was ready for what was to come.
I didn't realize it then, but we gave Derrick a boost in confidence by letting him know he could do what we were asking. We also added to that a logical visible strategy of what we wanted him to do and it was doable for him. He did what we asked.
The results were beyond what I expected as well. I started watching the guys gradually get stronger in their encouragement of Derrick. I think it might have started to become a competition on who could shout the loudest for him in words of encouragement. There were too those slaps of encouragement that football players love. The atmosphere changed from one of jeering to cheering. It was the icing on the cake, but again there was something more that was to happen.
If I recall correctly, it was a year later when I saw a football player running toward me who I eventually recognized was Derrick. He was smiling from one side of his face to the other with that effectious smile of his. Here was a guy now shaped no longer widest in the middle, but widest in the shoulders and narrowest in the middle. It was amazing what he had done.
He had his emotional confidence. He had his logical "to do" plan. Who knows what Derrick might be able to accomplish. I can't wait to find out what you can do also. Take care.
Sincerely,
Jon
Communication Basics: Being Ready (A Football Story)
There are only a few games in my entire coaching career where I felt a bit of shame. In three cases, there was nothing that I could do, because control over aspects of the game had been taken from me. There was one game where it looked like I might feel more than a bit of shame. I was the coach in charge. The head caoch was gone for that week. I thought we were reasonably ready to play. That time I was wrong.
We unceremoniously fell behind 16-0 at the end of the first half. For a freshman team that is a long way behind, because usually a quarterback takes a bit longer to mature as a passer than do some of the other positions with their respective roles. So heading to our end zone area at the end of the half, I had better have something to say to avoid a potentially embarrassing loss.
I saw everyone of my player's heads hanging. I think I interpreted this as a lack of confidence at the time. I now realize it was a clear indication of shame. You know this too. Your parents will say to you when you are ashamed, "Stop hanging your head". So I pulled out a story that didn't just address fear and confidence, but also shame and acceptance. I did not realize the latter then, but I got lucky. Then I hitched to that story the idea of Keep It Simple Silly (KISS). I was just thinking of the idea of information load here and not overloading their brains. Actually, it is also a great logic to connect with the feelings of acceptance. How many times can a guy get lucky in one game?
So I shared with them that I had watched our team while I was playing come back from 21-0 at the half and win in a state record 5 overtimes. Part of this story too each guy taking responsibility for their part on the field rather than pointing the finger at someone else. Then I told the offense one thing to fix and the defense one thing to fix. I told them not to think about any other errors. Just fix the biggest on each side of the ball. This did avoid mental overload, but it also avoided acceptance overload - we'll never measure up.
I was about to be greeted by one of the greatest turn arounds I have witnessed in my life. Two things really stand out. First, is one of the more talented players on our team stepping up and taking on more responsibility rather than pointing his finger at others. The other is that the defense did exactly what I asked and it changed everything on that side of the ball. The offense quickly turned their game around as well as we roared back into the game the second half. Very late in the game, we had one play left to win or to lose, the score was that close.
We came up just a few yards shy on that last play of winning the game. Everyone on our sideline knew that with more play or with any more luck we would have won. The most shocking thing was the response from our fans. One of the parents said that in all of the games he had witnessed he had never seen anything like it. I also was greeted by the other coach who asked, "What did you change at halftime?" I had to apologize and say I can't answer that question. They were after all probably our number one rival in our conference.
But only sidnce this last May 2014, have I seen what I did. I did it then, but I didn't see it. Not only that I think I mishandled the players feelings of acceptance later, because I didn't know that is what they were feeling. You see that second half, the KISS method made it possible for the players on each side to feel they measured up to what was acceptable to me and then thta changed the scoreboard in terms of what was acceptable to their fans. It is a "shame" that we didn't score on that last play, but the shame of the first half, it was rightly gone. They had good reason to feel so unashamed for that half. Take care and face down shame and aim instead for acceptance. That is the emotional part of being ready.
Sincerely
We unceremoniously fell behind 16-0 at the end of the first half. For a freshman team that is a long way behind, because usually a quarterback takes a bit longer to mature as a passer than do some of the other positions with their respective roles. So heading to our end zone area at the end of the half, I had better have something to say to avoid a potentially embarrassing loss.
I saw everyone of my player's heads hanging. I think I interpreted this as a lack of confidence at the time. I now realize it was a clear indication of shame. You know this too. Your parents will say to you when you are ashamed, "Stop hanging your head". So I pulled out a story that didn't just address fear and confidence, but also shame and acceptance. I did not realize the latter then, but I got lucky. Then I hitched to that story the idea of Keep It Simple Silly (KISS). I was just thinking of the idea of information load here and not overloading their brains. Actually, it is also a great logic to connect with the feelings of acceptance. How many times can a guy get lucky in one game?
So I shared with them that I had watched our team while I was playing come back from 21-0 at the half and win in a state record 5 overtimes. Part of this story too each guy taking responsibility for their part on the field rather than pointing the finger at someone else. Then I told the offense one thing to fix and the defense one thing to fix. I told them not to think about any other errors. Just fix the biggest on each side of the ball. This did avoid mental overload, but it also avoided acceptance overload - we'll never measure up.
I was about to be greeted by one of the greatest turn arounds I have witnessed in my life. Two things really stand out. First, is one of the more talented players on our team stepping up and taking on more responsibility rather than pointing his finger at others. The other is that the defense did exactly what I asked and it changed everything on that side of the ball. The offense quickly turned their game around as well as we roared back into the game the second half. Very late in the game, we had one play left to win or to lose, the score was that close.
We came up just a few yards shy on that last play of winning the game. Everyone on our sideline knew that with more play or with any more luck we would have won. The most shocking thing was the response from our fans. One of the parents said that in all of the games he had witnessed he had never seen anything like it. I also was greeted by the other coach who asked, "What did you change at halftime?" I had to apologize and say I can't answer that question. They were after all probably our number one rival in our conference.
But only sidnce this last May 2014, have I seen what I did. I did it then, but I didn't see it. Not only that I think I mishandled the players feelings of acceptance later, because I didn't know that is what they were feeling. You see that second half, the KISS method made it possible for the players on each side to feel they measured up to what was acceptable to me and then thta changed the scoreboard in terms of what was acceptable to their fans. It is a "shame" that we didn't score on that last play, but the shame of the first half, it was rightly gone. They had good reason to feel so unashamed for that half. Take care and face down shame and aim instead for acceptance. That is the emotional part of being ready.
Sincerely
Communication Basics: Being Willing (A Football Story)
Two times after games I have had the opposing coaches ask me what I did after a victory. Of course, I could not tell them then, because I wanted to keep our competitve advantage. Well, time has now passed and I can be more open about what we did as a staff and players.
By far, one of the most dramatic games I have ever coached was one where we entirely blew another team out as far as the score was concerned. I don't know any longer the exact details, so I apologize for any errors, but I ask that you indulge me for using my best guesses. I do know two details for certain. We did not allow them to score and they gained minus yards for their offence for the entire game.
It was the same year as the LA Riots of the spring of that same year, except it was now the fall following adn there was fear over another race related incident. The LA Riots had inflicted a great deal of damage upon the city. Not just in its buildings, but in its people. Race relations had significantly diminished. In some neighborhoods where different racial groups had enjoyed relative friendship there were now more hard feelings.
In a time of a breakdown in relationships between people, there is always a sense of grief. But in this case, it wasn't a loss related to losing a friend due to natural health reasons. It was related to accusations of prejudice based on race. This same kind of issue as I recall happened again in the through an incident relating to police conduct again.
At this same time, there was also a freshman football game scheduled between our predonminately caucasionan school and a school that was predominantly Afriecan_ American school. School administrators from both schools wisely decided to delay the game another waek before we played each other. Unfortuanatley, while wisdom prevailed the folloiwing week not much had changed in the minds of our players. I think the general sense on the bus was that what is usually a friendly game of football might turn out to be otherwise. Our guys were reasonably afraid of playing under those conditions. What I noticed was that the fear was not isolated to a few players. There was fear that could lead to a disasterous outome. I turned to the head coach and I mentioned that due to our duty to keep our players safe, we might have to forfeit due to our players' state of mind. Marty was the head coach and he was not too keen on that idea.
I agreed with him and then I saw a way out for us. I told him I thought the actual threat of a forfeit might wake our players up and I might be able to convince our players to play with the condition that they could not play with fear. He allowed me to try it.
When the bus stopped at the opposing school, I heard the rattle of pads and asked the players to remain in their seats. I told them I was going to talk to the opposing coach. Our team captains quickly realized something was up and they wanted to know what. I told them that due to their fear, I felt that we had to consider forfeiting because fear is not a safe way to approach the game. In football terms, we call it a major factor in entering a game and "getting killed".
As I expected, they wanted nothing to do with a forfeit. So I made a bargain with them. If they didn't want to forfeit, then they needed to overcome their fear of unfriendly competition. I didn't use the word confidence, but I know that is what I wanted from them. I then told them a strategy for overcoming their fears based on my dad's saying, "they are more afraid of you than you are of them" and one of my coaches allowing me to set the bar with an opposing player where he was afraid of me rather than the other way around. I also reminded our players that while they needed to play hard they needed to play clean. This is what I think more than anything keeps competition friendly. Playing hard was to mean just that without any cheap shots.
I must have gotten their attention and they were absolutely true to their word to do as I asked. They satisfied entirely Coach Marty Smith's and my concerns. They went straight down the field on the opening kickoff and it looked like a bowling ball knocking down the pins in an alley for a strike.
We won that day without any effort to run up the score, something like 38-0. But perahaps the most telling was the defensive effort of keeping the other team to a minus 7 yards for the game. Keep in mind this was a freshman squad. They were a long ways from seasoned senior players.
This game demonstrates the importance of addressing not just strategy and plans but also the emotions of players. The other thing is that the order was emotions first, logic second. This fits with the findings of Dan Goleman in his book, Emotional Intelligence. The result was a team that was willing to play cleanly and without fear right then and there. The game turned into a joyful occasion from one that seemed would turn out otherwise on the ride over on the bus. Even in the greeting at the end of the game, the other coach clearly perceived the cleanness of our game. He just had one simple question. What did you do?
I'm still hesitant to tell the whole story. But anyway, now he and others know more than I revealed then. Telling the whole story is almost like telling everybody your favorite fishing hole. No one does that, do they?. Anyway, I still am going to hold a little back. Take care of your fearful players.
Sincerely,
Jon
By far, one of the most dramatic games I have ever coached was one where we entirely blew another team out as far as the score was concerned. I don't know any longer the exact details, so I apologize for any errors, but I ask that you indulge me for using my best guesses. I do know two details for certain. We did not allow them to score and they gained minus yards for their offence for the entire game.
It was the same year as the LA Riots of the spring of that same year, except it was now the fall following adn there was fear over another race related incident. The LA Riots had inflicted a great deal of damage upon the city. Not just in its buildings, but in its people. Race relations had significantly diminished. In some neighborhoods where different racial groups had enjoyed relative friendship there were now more hard feelings.
In a time of a breakdown in relationships between people, there is always a sense of grief. But in this case, it wasn't a loss related to losing a friend due to natural health reasons. It was related to accusations of prejudice based on race. This same kind of issue as I recall happened again in the through an incident relating to police conduct again.
At this same time, there was also a freshman football game scheduled between our predonminately caucasionan school and a school that was predominantly Afriecan_ American school. School administrators from both schools wisely decided to delay the game another waek before we played each other. Unfortuanatley, while wisdom prevailed the folloiwing week not much had changed in the minds of our players. I think the general sense on the bus was that what is usually a friendly game of football might turn out to be otherwise. Our guys were reasonably afraid of playing under those conditions. What I noticed was that the fear was not isolated to a few players. There was fear that could lead to a disasterous outome. I turned to the head coach and I mentioned that due to our duty to keep our players safe, we might have to forfeit due to our players' state of mind. Marty was the head coach and he was not too keen on that idea.
I agreed with him and then I saw a way out for us. I told him I thought the actual threat of a forfeit might wake our players up and I might be able to convince our players to play with the condition that they could not play with fear. He allowed me to try it.
When the bus stopped at the opposing school, I heard the rattle of pads and asked the players to remain in their seats. I told them I was going to talk to the opposing coach. Our team captains quickly realized something was up and they wanted to know what. I told them that due to their fear, I felt that we had to consider forfeiting because fear is not a safe way to approach the game. In football terms, we call it a major factor in entering a game and "getting killed".
As I expected, they wanted nothing to do with a forfeit. So I made a bargain with them. If they didn't want to forfeit, then they needed to overcome their fear of unfriendly competition. I didn't use the word confidence, but I know that is what I wanted from them. I then told them a strategy for overcoming their fears based on my dad's saying, "they are more afraid of you than you are of them" and one of my coaches allowing me to set the bar with an opposing player where he was afraid of me rather than the other way around. I also reminded our players that while they needed to play hard they needed to play clean. This is what I think more than anything keeps competition friendly. Playing hard was to mean just that without any cheap shots.
I must have gotten their attention and they were absolutely true to their word to do as I asked. They satisfied entirely Coach Marty Smith's and my concerns. They went straight down the field on the opening kickoff and it looked like a bowling ball knocking down the pins in an alley for a strike.
We won that day without any effort to run up the score, something like 38-0. But perahaps the most telling was the defensive effort of keeping the other team to a minus 7 yards for the game. Keep in mind this was a freshman squad. They were a long ways from seasoned senior players.
This game demonstrates the importance of addressing not just strategy and plans but also the emotions of players. The other thing is that the order was emotions first, logic second. This fits with the findings of Dan Goleman in his book, Emotional Intelligence. The result was a team that was willing to play cleanly and without fear right then and there. The game turned into a joyful occasion from one that seemed would turn out otherwise on the ride over on the bus. Even in the greeting at the end of the game, the other coach clearly perceived the cleanness of our game. He just had one simple question. What did you do?
I'm still hesitant to tell the whole story. But anyway, now he and others know more than I revealed then. Telling the whole story is almost like telling everybody your favorite fishing hole. No one does that, do they?. Anyway, I still am going to hold a little back. Take care of your fearful players.
Sincerely,
Jon
Communication Basics: Being Satisfied (Inner City School Teaching Story)
Sometimes in life it is a combination of skill and luck that makes you successful. In the case of moving from a classroom of students from dissatisfaction to satisfaction while I was a substitute teacher, I must give credit to both. What had changed leading up to this point was my desire to increase class discipline and learning through more of the carrot and less of the stick. The other thing was continuing to use a logical tool that showed the students the purpose and method of school, so they could be more motivated and more successful.
If you were a student growing up, then you know how bad it sometimes went for substitutes as students tried to test their worth. When I was a student my classmates sometimes ate them for lunch. While I lived in California I needed some more income, so I added this to my mix for making more money whenever my other jobs were not producing adequately. I decided from the start, I was not going to be a sub who was eaten alive by the class.
I developed a great "stick" approach to class discipline. I was never really eaten alive, though it certainly was tough some times. I wasn't satisfied though it was a good starting point from which to begin. As time passed, I became more aware of a desire to "use the carrot more than the stick". Sometime in the early 2000s, I finally wanted to try something new. It likely was in 2004 and following. For some time I had been using a tool that showed students the logic behind school, both in terms of the how and the why. This clearly made things better, but I still wasn't fully satisfied.
So finally, when I was substituting in downtown St. Paul, MN, I put up on the board two diagrams. One had to do with the carrot or the stick. The carrot in this case was pleasure. The stick in this case was pain. Next to that, I placed a pie chart with 4 words for each slice of the logical pie and one name for the whole pie.
I also wrote my name on the board, since I knew knowing my name was significant in creating ease in the class. Then I would introduce myself as the teacher who wanted to keep things on the positive side of pleasure in education, but that they also had a responsibility to keep it from going to education becoming a pain. Next, I would ask them why they were in school and wrote down on the board their answers.
It was the same nearly everywhere I went. No one really knew the how and the why. I usually say 95% didn't know, but that is being very generous. Answers would range from because I have to and my mom made me come to having a better chance at a better paying job. These answers may not have been on the mark, but they were real reasons students were in class. Then I would ask them, if they could tell me from my chart, the core reason behind why they were in school and how the set up of school fostered that. On my multiple choice chart, they got even closer to the answer, but usually the one that was the main one was the last one they chose.
It was then that I would explain that the why of school was to teach us mainly about things and the words associated with them. If they would realize that the strength of school was there, but also that its strengths were not in the others, then they were better equipped to be successful in school. But if they asked school to be something it wasn't like focused on action, then they would likely find it hard to be successsful. The key was to learn its strengths and then supplement from other areas to build an overall strong person.
[School already does try to supplement itself in the other areas. It has physical education (PE) to go along side mental education (ME). It also offers extra-curricular options to supplement the student and classroom emphases. You have sports to strengthen the body alongside the mind. You have clubs to strengthen the soul alongside the mind. It is a time to strictly work on building relationships and friendships. There were leagues or bowl events for larger scale opportunities to build our heart for competition to be the best at something a person can be. These things I likely did not mention the day I was at the St. Paul high school. But I sure wish I had.]
The best part of this new approach was that the students became model students that day. It was the best classroom behavior I had ever experienced. But that was just the icing on the cake. It was not the writing on the cake. That came at the end of the school day. I was walking down the hall when a student from one of my classes that day said, "I wish I was you". At first, I was in a bit of shock. I just had a student say this to me "a substitute". But that student made my day. He put the writing on the cake.
All these years later I can now see how I addressed emotions in a very general way through the carrot of pleasure and the stick of pain. I also addressed their logic. They wanted to know "how" does this thing called school work and "why" am I here in school, when I could be home watching TV or playing video games. I let them see the whole picture and then picked out the part that school handles the best. There was no reason to be jealous of others, when for the first time you have the satisfaction of knowing why you are in school.
What I thought was the more important part then, addressing the IQ for who and whole (the whole picture and the part school filled in that picture), wasn't the main reason for this students' enthusiasm. It was firs, the EQ (Emotional Intelligence) for school and the sense of emulation over jealousy. Why be jealous of others when you feel satisfaction? Not so obviously that day produced emulation as a pleasure and diminished jealousy as a pain for those students.
I can't wait now to get back into a teaching role wherever it might be. Because now I can expand the picture to include not only the carrot over the stick, but the basic emotions that line up with each of the basic logics. The emotional center and the logical center will now be better able to talk to each other and to make the mind a better functioning tool for handling this thing called life. Ah, the sweet enjoyment of emulation of mind.
Sincerely,
Jon
If you were a student growing up, then you know how bad it sometimes went for substitutes as students tried to test their worth. When I was a student my classmates sometimes ate them for lunch. While I lived in California I needed some more income, so I added this to my mix for making more money whenever my other jobs were not producing adequately. I decided from the start, I was not going to be a sub who was eaten alive by the class.
I developed a great "stick" approach to class discipline. I was never really eaten alive, though it certainly was tough some times. I wasn't satisfied though it was a good starting point from which to begin. As time passed, I became more aware of a desire to "use the carrot more than the stick". Sometime in the early 2000s, I finally wanted to try something new. It likely was in 2004 and following. For some time I had been using a tool that showed students the logic behind school, both in terms of the how and the why. This clearly made things better, but I still wasn't fully satisfied.
So finally, when I was substituting in downtown St. Paul, MN, I put up on the board two diagrams. One had to do with the carrot or the stick. The carrot in this case was pleasure. The stick in this case was pain. Next to that, I placed a pie chart with 4 words for each slice of the logical pie and one name for the whole pie.
I also wrote my name on the board, since I knew knowing my name was significant in creating ease in the class. Then I would introduce myself as the teacher who wanted to keep things on the positive side of pleasure in education, but that they also had a responsibility to keep it from going to education becoming a pain. Next, I would ask them why they were in school and wrote down on the board their answers.
It was the same nearly everywhere I went. No one really knew the how and the why. I usually say 95% didn't know, but that is being very generous. Answers would range from because I have to and my mom made me come to having a better chance at a better paying job. These answers may not have been on the mark, but they were real reasons students were in class. Then I would ask them, if they could tell me from my chart, the core reason behind why they were in school and how the set up of school fostered that. On my multiple choice chart, they got even closer to the answer, but usually the one that was the main one was the last one they chose.
It was then that I would explain that the why of school was to teach us mainly about things and the words associated with them. If they would realize that the strength of school was there, but also that its strengths were not in the others, then they were better equipped to be successful in school. But if they asked school to be something it wasn't like focused on action, then they would likely find it hard to be successsful. The key was to learn its strengths and then supplement from other areas to build an overall strong person.
[School already does try to supplement itself in the other areas. It has physical education (PE) to go along side mental education (ME). It also offers extra-curricular options to supplement the student and classroom emphases. You have sports to strengthen the body alongside the mind. You have clubs to strengthen the soul alongside the mind. It is a time to strictly work on building relationships and friendships. There were leagues or bowl events for larger scale opportunities to build our heart for competition to be the best at something a person can be. These things I likely did not mention the day I was at the St. Paul high school. But I sure wish I had.]
The best part of this new approach was that the students became model students that day. It was the best classroom behavior I had ever experienced. But that was just the icing on the cake. It was not the writing on the cake. That came at the end of the school day. I was walking down the hall when a student from one of my classes that day said, "I wish I was you". At first, I was in a bit of shock. I just had a student say this to me "a substitute". But that student made my day. He put the writing on the cake.
All these years later I can now see how I addressed emotions in a very general way through the carrot of pleasure and the stick of pain. I also addressed their logic. They wanted to know "how" does this thing called school work and "why" am I here in school, when I could be home watching TV or playing video games. I let them see the whole picture and then picked out the part that school handles the best. There was no reason to be jealous of others, when for the first time you have the satisfaction of knowing why you are in school.
What I thought was the more important part then, addressing the IQ for who and whole (the whole picture and the part school filled in that picture), wasn't the main reason for this students' enthusiasm. It was firs, the EQ (Emotional Intelligence) for school and the sense of emulation over jealousy. Why be jealous of others when you feel satisfaction? Not so obviously that day produced emulation as a pleasure and diminished jealousy as a pain for those students.
I can't wait now to get back into a teaching role wherever it might be. Because now I can expand the picture to include not only the carrot over the stick, but the basic emotions that line up with each of the basic logics. The emotional center and the logical center will now be better able to talk to each other and to make the mind a better functioning tool for handling this thing called life. Ah, the sweet enjoyment of emulation of mind.
Sincerely,
Jon
Communication Basics: You Can Get Satisfaction
The basics for the mind and/or the organ of seeing is this set:
ready
willing
satisfying
able
seeing
The question remains of what makes us ready, wiling, satisfactory, able and seeing. I believe it consists of two lists that together not alone create a mind that is satisfied. The first list is our basic emotions. They are:
acceptance
joy
emulation (I want to be like you)
confidence
peace
The second list is basic logic thing categories. They are:
amounts
relationship
whole
action
thing
When these sets are preent the mind is satisfied. When they are not present the mind is not satisfied, but restless until they are found. That is the core of my approach to ,mental health.
There absence is what I believe produced mental illness. You must avoid these in terms of what should be the stronger in your life. Take care of your mental health and satisfaction.
Sincerely,
Jon
Communication Basics: Finding What Satisfies
It is not only important to want something. It is also important to get satisfaction for what you need or want.
Let me illustrate from a time-honored part of contract law. It was considered important in law to consider whether a person is ready, willing, and able to keep a contract. If it was discovered that they were not ready, not willing, and not able to keep a contract that could change a court's ruling.
Please note that the list of ready, willing, and able is not about what someone wants, but about their satisfying the criteria. The unready, etc. is about what is wanted or needed being not met as criteria. Wanting here means you don't have it.
Ready, willing, able, [and seeing] means satisfying a want. I might make a statement that I am satisfied that I am ready, willing, able, and seeing. But I don't think I would make a statement of satisfaction if I am not ready, not willing, not able, and/or not seeing. Then I can't get satisfaction.
So seek what satisfies when it comes to learning. Find something that can meet all the criteria that in the end adds up to satisfying. Take care.
Sincerely,
Jon
first noted 4/4/2014
Let me illustrate from a time-honored part of contract law. It was considered important in law to consider whether a person is ready, willing, and able to keep a contract. If it was discovered that they were not ready, not willing, and not able to keep a contract that could change a court's ruling.
Please note that the list of ready, willing, and able is not about what someone wants, but about their satisfying the criteria. The unready, etc. is about what is wanted or needed being not met as criteria. Wanting here means you don't have it.
Ready, willing, able, [and seeing] means satisfying a want. I might make a statement that I am satisfied that I am ready, willing, able, and seeing. But I don't think I would make a statement of satisfaction if I am not ready, not willing, not able, and/or not seeing. Then I can't get satisfaction.
So seek what satisfies when it comes to learning. Find something that can meet all the criteria that in the end adds up to satisfying. Take care.
Sincerely,
Jon
first noted 4/4/2014
Communication Basics: Starting rather than Waiting
Double-blind studies are great, but there are problems with them as well. First, they are in short supply compared to the wealth of all knowledge. Second, double-blind studies change their minds a lot. So while the goals are admirable: 1) we need to raise the quantity of things studied this way, and 2) we need to raise the quality of studies; we can't entrust all of knowledge to them. I say this tongue in cheek, but if we relied only on them for our physical health, we might starve while waiting.
I have people every day come into a nutritional store where I work and they are confused and befuddled by the latest double-blind or not so double-blind studies. Peer-reviewed is also an admirable goal, but still that leaves a lot that we know that is unstudied. So what should we do? Should we wait? Should we ignore their impact and race ahead? Should we through all the studies into the Boston Harbor since they can't agree?
Double-blind is good to eliminate the placebo-effect. But that doesn't mean that all previous results in tests were wrong due to a placebo effect. It means some of them were.
Likewise, peer-reviewed is an excellent quality, but peers can mess up. That is why we have jury trials. Because the peers of law professionals sometimes mess up. So what should a person do?
There is good evidence to show that a lot of knowledge has been tested and tested and tested over generations and is still holding up pretty well. For me, the past yields a lot tests as well. You just can't turn a blind eye to the failures along the way. You need to re-test those.
But also whey look for problems where there are none? Are we going to throw aside the insights of a successful coach like John Wooden, because he didn't double-blind study all his ideas and peer review after every game? Sports psychology is a great branch of further study, but it is in no place as a Johnny Come Lately to replace everything. It is though in a place to look at the cracks or fault lines with due humility.
When I first met John Wooden, he first gave me a copy of his success pyramid. He also gave me his personal phone number and said he would be swilling to talk with me as a younger coach.
He taught me two great things. Start at the beginning and don't run from the calling you have been given.
The lesson here for us is that even double-blind studies and peer-reviewed studies have a starting point. You have to begin from somewhere.at sometime. We don't have all day for all decisions. That is why we add clocks at sporting events and at work and at school. The thing to do during a time block is to determine what puts you at the best starting point of all your options. I would choose Wooden's base over sports psychology's base at the moment.
The point is to both start closer and to start faster. To have no starting point is to start further from the starting point. That is the danger of studies. It is that no one finds a closer place to begin. Remember, somewhere is always better than nowhere and now is always better than later, when it comes to starting. That same advice does not necessarily apply to finishing.
Sports psychology has already begun to study Wooden's insights. I just hope his being rated as the number one coach by ESPN and be other polls will still count for something. His teaching and his coaching were tested over and over many times. Let's remember that a double-blind study and a peer-review paper a full test does not make.every one a teacher or a coach.
What do think the sports psychology people could help with is studying his leadership idea "The Emotions Are Your Enemy". My SWOT analysis says that is a possible weakness in his approach alongside his strengths. But before that study is done, I think a person has to do their own trial and error in life to some degree and get started. To start with Wooden's base in his success pyramid seems to be a safe place to start. Take care.
Sincerely,
Jon
I have people every day come into a nutritional store where I work and they are confused and befuddled by the latest double-blind or not so double-blind studies. Peer-reviewed is also an admirable goal, but still that leaves a lot that we know that is unstudied. So what should we do? Should we wait? Should we ignore their impact and race ahead? Should we through all the studies into the Boston Harbor since they can't agree?
Double-blind is good to eliminate the placebo-effect. But that doesn't mean that all previous results in tests were wrong due to a placebo effect. It means some of them were.
Likewise, peer-reviewed is an excellent quality, but peers can mess up. That is why we have jury trials. Because the peers of law professionals sometimes mess up. So what should a person do?
There is good evidence to show that a lot of knowledge has been tested and tested and tested over generations and is still holding up pretty well. For me, the past yields a lot tests as well. You just can't turn a blind eye to the failures along the way. You need to re-test those.
But also whey look for problems where there are none? Are we going to throw aside the insights of a successful coach like John Wooden, because he didn't double-blind study all his ideas and peer review after every game? Sports psychology is a great branch of further study, but it is in no place as a Johnny Come Lately to replace everything. It is though in a place to look at the cracks or fault lines with due humility.
When I first met John Wooden, he first gave me a copy of his success pyramid. He also gave me his personal phone number and said he would be swilling to talk with me as a younger coach.
He taught me two great things. Start at the beginning and don't run from the calling you have been given.
The lesson here for us is that even double-blind studies and peer-reviewed studies have a starting point. You have to begin from somewhere.at sometime. We don't have all day for all decisions. That is why we add clocks at sporting events and at work and at school. The thing to do during a time block is to determine what puts you at the best starting point of all your options. I would choose Wooden's base over sports psychology's base at the moment.
The point is to both start closer and to start faster. To have no starting point is to start further from the starting point. That is the danger of studies. It is that no one finds a closer place to begin. Remember, somewhere is always better than nowhere and now is always better than later, when it comes to starting. That same advice does not necessarily apply to finishing.
Sports psychology has already begun to study Wooden's insights. I just hope his being rated as the number one coach by ESPN and be other polls will still count for something. His teaching and his coaching were tested over and over many times. Let's remember that a double-blind study and a peer-review paper a full test does not make.every one a teacher or a coach.
What do think the sports psychology people could help with is studying his leadership idea "The Emotions Are Your Enemy". My SWOT analysis says that is a possible weakness in his approach alongside his strengths. But before that study is done, I think a person has to do their own trial and error in life to some degree and get started. To start with Wooden's base in his success pyramid seems to be a safe place to start. Take care.
Sincerely,
Jon
Communication Basics:Doing Everything Through one Mind
Wouldn't it be cool to have one device that's common to all and through which everything can be done? The electronic's geeks are racing toward that one still. In many ways, the integrated circuit has already accomplished this goal. But what if you had a tool that helped your own brain function better?
What if you don't have to have a real estate device of a separate kind, you don't have to have an automotive device of a separate kind, you don't have have an exegetical device of a separate kind, and you don't have to have a [you put in your favorite] of a separate kind?
You don't have to have a linguistic device of a separate kind, you don't have to have contagious marketing of a separate kind, you don't have to have church planters devices of a separate kind, and you don't have to have purpose sketches of a separate kind? What if instead you have the greatest tool for your mind which brings both the common and the technical together, so that it becomes one as in an integrated device?
I think that should be popular. That is what I have designed for the mind. You can read about it more detail by scanning my other posts. Take care of your mind. It is a terrible thing to waste.
Sincerely,
Jon
first noted 4/5/2014
What if you don't have to have a real estate device of a separate kind, you don't have to have an automotive device of a separate kind, you don't have have an exegetical device of a separate kind, and you don't have to have a [you put in your favorite] of a separate kind?
You don't have to have a linguistic device of a separate kind, you don't have to have contagious marketing of a separate kind, you don't have to have church planters devices of a separate kind, and you don't have to have purpose sketches of a separate kind? What if instead you have the greatest tool for your mind which brings both the common and the technical together, so that it becomes one as in an integrated device?
I think that should be popular. That is what I have designed for the mind. You can read about it more detail by scanning my other posts. Take care of your mind. It is a terrible thing to waste.
Sincerely,
Jon
first noted 4/5/2014
Communication Basics: Use Your Voice
I have some really simply advice in the area of communication today. It is this: "Use your words, not your silence or your violence". There are a lot of people who can use that simple advice in communication.
There are many sounds in this world. Use the voice one. Here are some of them:
the sound of silence,
the sound of voice,
the sound of music, and
the sound of violence
Many people don't use their voice, because they are frustrated at their inability to use it. Then find a coach and learn to use it. Please take care to use your voice!
Sincerely,
Jon
first noted 4/15/2014
There are many sounds in this world. Use the voice one. Here are some of them:
the sound of silence,
the sound of voice,
the sound of music, and
the sound of violence
Many people don't use their voice, because they are frustrated at their inability to use it. Then find a coach and learn to use it. Please take care to use your voice!
Sincerely,
Jon
first noted 4/15/2014
Communication Basics: The Blind leading the Blind
The issues right now following my discussion with a fellow minister is that we've got the blind leading the blind. People are not seeing. People are associating emotions with relationships and not with all things and the nervous system as a whole.
They are also not seeing that what is foundational is only on a psychology 105 level and an eighth grader ought to be able to understand. That bottom level is what I am trying to provide and strengthen rather than trying to strengthen the top of the pyramid of learning.
The bottom line problem still remains a problem of seeing or rather a problem of not seeing. Good teachers help people see. Bad teachers conceal what should be visible. If you read my other posts you will see the basic 5 emotions, the basic 5 logics, and the 5 altogether combinations from the first two.
Keep searching and studying till you have those 15 down. When you do you will be smarter than a PhD. By the way, I still regard the goal of PhD education highly. They should have the opportunity to lead. But if they are blind about the basics, how can they lead?
My only criticism of the PhD level isthat many of them are not getting a foundationally strong first-rate basic education before they reach that level. Be smart and seeing and then you will take care.
Sincerely,
Jon
They are also not seeing that what is foundational is only on a psychology 105 level and an eighth grader ought to be able to understand. That bottom level is what I am trying to provide and strengthen rather than trying to strengthen the top of the pyramid of learning.
The bottom line problem still remains a problem of seeing or rather a problem of not seeing. Good teachers help people see. Bad teachers conceal what should be visible. If you read my other posts you will see the basic 5 emotions, the basic 5 logics, and the 5 altogether combinations from the first two.
Keep searching and studying till you have those 15 down. When you do you will be smarter than a PhD. By the way, I still regard the goal of PhD education highly. They should have the opportunity to lead. But if they are blind about the basics, how can they lead?
My only criticism of the PhD level isthat many of them are not getting a foundationally strong first-rate basic education before they reach that level. Be smart and seeing and then you will take care.
Sincerely,
Jon
Communication Basics: Making it Silly Proof
There was a saying when I was in school that a teacher or a coach needed to make things "moron-proof". This type of language doesn't pass the grade any longer. But I do think that it is important to make things "silly proof". We should simplify things (not too far to the point of being naive) in most cases down to a level where silly mistakes can be avoided.
You can have a PhD from Harvard or Yale or even Stanford and still fail the silly proof test If I were to ask you right now the big five kinds of categories and the big five emotions, you would likely fail the test. [Take a moment and write them down]. If you look elsewhere into this blog you will find all ten. What was your score out of 10? Unless you cheated, I know you did not score well. That goes for those with PhDs.
This is purely silly. Shouldn't every speaker of English know the basic 5 of each and possess the ability to add the next five as well. But we don't.
We continue to practice education that is not silly proof. We tolerate silly answers to silly questions. My question is not silly. I am asking you, "What are your basics in intelligence?" What is silly is that you can go through 5 levels of education (each about 4 years long) and so put in nearly 20 years of school education and still make silly intellectual errors.
Let's start producing silly-proof intellects in the United States at least and watch the silly mistakes melt before the mind's ability to do its job.
Sincerely,
Jon
P.S. The Dummy and Idiot series of books proves my point, if nothing else does. They are insulting titles that people still need at the PhD level. That's silly.
first noted probably around April 2014
You can have a PhD from Harvard or Yale or even Stanford and still fail the silly proof test If I were to ask you right now the big five kinds of categories and the big five emotions, you would likely fail the test. [Take a moment and write them down]. If you look elsewhere into this blog you will find all ten. What was your score out of 10? Unless you cheated, I know you did not score well. That goes for those with PhDs.
This is purely silly. Shouldn't every speaker of English know the basic 5 of each and possess the ability to add the next five as well. But we don't.
We continue to practice education that is not silly proof. We tolerate silly answers to silly questions. My question is not silly. I am asking you, "What are your basics in intelligence?" What is silly is that you can go through 5 levels of education (each about 4 years long) and so put in nearly 20 years of school education and still make silly intellectual errors.
Let's start producing silly-proof intellects in the United States at least and watch the silly mistakes melt before the mind's ability to do its job.
Sincerely,
Jon
P.S. The Dummy and Idiot series of books proves my point, if nothing else does. They are insulting titles that people still need at the PhD level. That's silly.
first noted probably around April 2014
Communication Basics: The Greatest and the Least in the Kingdom of Words
To be the greatest in the kingdom of words, you have to be the least in the kingdom of words. This unfortunately is often overlooked. Teachers don't have their students study hardest the most frequent words in vocabulary, but rather fall into the trap of thinking that expanding their students's vocabulary is the most in the kingdom of words.
A bell curve pattern should teach us otherwise. The greater numbers of people fall into the middle of a bell curve, when ranking intelligence. So why would it not also true that the strength of this group is also in the highest frequency words? Why are we instead focused on the fringes of people and vocabulary?
I have studied a number of word frequency lists including those of Hebrew and Greek on top of English. The top 25 most frequent words in these languages pretty much include the top 10 words I am looking for as a common sense foundation.
Greatness is also seen in the example of the history of computers. The zenith of computers was not when it was aboard the Apollo 11 so much as when it was made available to everyone. That is the genius of Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak (Apple Computer founders) and Bob Noyce (he was a founder of Intel). Both had visions of the the frequent uses of their technology, not the narrower use by specialists as their primary goal.
If we are going to teach students vocabulary, I think it is best to start from the most frequent words and celebrate the common sense of many students rather than put so much emphasis on spelling bee champions and the like, who are masters not of the greatest words, but of the least words. Least hear starting from the least frequent. Take care of your teaching and your vocabulary that you make it greater. .
Sincerely,
Jon
Originially noted: 4/17/14
A bell curve pattern should teach us otherwise. The greater numbers of people fall into the middle of a bell curve, when ranking intelligence. So why would it not also true that the strength of this group is also in the highest frequency words? Why are we instead focused on the fringes of people and vocabulary?
I have studied a number of word frequency lists including those of Hebrew and Greek on top of English. The top 25 most frequent words in these languages pretty much include the top 10 words I am looking for as a common sense foundation.
Greatness is also seen in the example of the history of computers. The zenith of computers was not when it was aboard the Apollo 11 so much as when it was made available to everyone. That is the genius of Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak (Apple Computer founders) and Bob Noyce (he was a founder of Intel). Both had visions of the the frequent uses of their technology, not the narrower use by specialists as their primary goal.
If we are going to teach students vocabulary, I think it is best to start from the most frequent words and celebrate the common sense of many students rather than put so much emphasis on spelling bee champions and the like, who are masters not of the greatest words, but of the least words. Least hear starting from the least frequent. Take care of your teaching and your vocabulary that you make it greater. .
Sincerely,
Jon
Originially noted: 4/17/14
Saturday, July 26, 2014
Communication basics: Classical Rhetoric and the Cutting Edge Logic of Computers
Quintilian, a Roman rhetorician, organized rhetoric into its classical five parts. Later rhetoricians like Campbell tried to also organize words into similar categories like those of the larger aspects of a public address. Some have speculated that this is the source for the semantic domains of Eugene A. Nida called TEAR. But I rather think that his semantic domains may have risen out of the success of computers and their technical language.
Computers and their wild success are based on approximately 6 major themes, logics, or categories. Computers are critical to understanding both the logic and the history behind my ARWAT approach to basic communication. Nida could have derived his four categories from the language of computers.
He chose to speak of four primary semantic domains (as seen in the acronym TEAR):
Things
Events
Relations
Attributes
Things of course is not really much of a clue either way, but events, relations, and attributes all have the ring of computer relations or basic categories. If you were to read the technical discussions in the computer field on relations, you would see some of this language.
It is no big stretch to expand Nida's TEAR to include the relations between parts and wholes. And in the recent articles dealing with object-related relations in a computer context, there is some evidence that the sixth category could fit into one of the other five. This is no place for that technical discussion.
Let it suffice to say that the language of computers with its six categories and the language of rhetoric with its five categories show a great deal of overlap. While rhetoric speaks more to the macro level and computer language more to a micro level there is no reason not to see the parallels between them.
In any case, a pretty good case can be made for Nida's TEAR idea whether you argue for a classical origin in rhetoric or a cutting edge origin in computers. I favor the latter, but I think there is further support from classical rhetoric that is helpful as well..
I think lending further support to their method is the core course labels of undergraduate level linguistics classes while I was a student at Bethel University (St. Paul, MN). They were:
Continuity and change (this I believe parallels "Attributes", ex. old or new, etc.)
Bond and Barrier (this I believe parallels "Relations", ex. connected or disconnected, etc.)
Models and Theories (wholes - not listed by Nida, ex. these are each comprehensive competing options)
Rule and Freedom (this I believe parallels "Events", ex. the rules and freedoms in the game of Monopoly)
Sense and Nonsense (this I believe parallels "Things", ex. a thing is something you can sense, nothing is not the same thing, etc.)
So perhaps Nida's idea of semantic domains, which I consider his best idea, may have the most lasting legacy because of its ties to computers and to the classics. This blend would be a sales marketers dream.
Sincerely,
Jon
Computers and their wild success are based on approximately 6 major themes, logics, or categories. Computers are critical to understanding both the logic and the history behind my ARWAT approach to basic communication. Nida could have derived his four categories from the language of computers.
He chose to speak of four primary semantic domains (as seen in the acronym TEAR):
Things
Events
Relations
Attributes
Things of course is not really much of a clue either way, but events, relations, and attributes all have the ring of computer relations or basic categories. If you were to read the technical discussions in the computer field on relations, you would see some of this language.
It is no big stretch to expand Nida's TEAR to include the relations between parts and wholes. And in the recent articles dealing with object-related relations in a computer context, there is some evidence that the sixth category could fit into one of the other five. This is no place for that technical discussion.
Let it suffice to say that the language of computers with its six categories and the language of rhetoric with its five categories show a great deal of overlap. While rhetoric speaks more to the macro level and computer language more to a micro level there is no reason not to see the parallels between them.
In any case, a pretty good case can be made for Nida's TEAR idea whether you argue for a classical origin in rhetoric or a cutting edge origin in computers. I favor the latter, but I think there is further support from classical rhetoric that is helpful as well..
I think lending further support to their method is the core course labels of undergraduate level linguistics classes while I was a student at Bethel University (St. Paul, MN). They were:
Continuity and change (this I believe parallels "Attributes", ex. old or new, etc.)
Bond and Barrier (this I believe parallels "Relations", ex. connected or disconnected, etc.)
Models and Theories (wholes - not listed by Nida, ex. these are each comprehensive competing options)
Rule and Freedom (this I believe parallels "Events", ex. the rules and freedoms in the game of Monopoly)
Sense and Nonsense (this I believe parallels "Things", ex. a thing is something you can sense, nothing is not the same thing, etc.)
So perhaps Nida's idea of semantic domains, which I consider his best idea, may have the most lasting legacy because of its ties to computers and to the classics. This blend would be a sales marketers dream.
Sincerely,
Jon
Communication Basics: Emotions as an Important Part of the Mind, not Primarily the Soul
You may say this to yourself as a reader of this blog. You, the writer, have started writing about emotions in your communication material lately. You're not a psychologist, so why should I listen to you on the topic of emotions?
I really appreciate you asking. You are breaking the silence, so now we can move forward. There is a number of great reasons. But silence on your question does not speak, words do. So let me answer your great question.
The first reason to listen to me is that I have been simplifying difficult things for younger students for years. My favorite school age to teach is junior highers. At that level, you had better have the ability to simplify 500 level course work down to 100 level course work. Over the years, I have simplified a lot of things that were given to me in a complex package. Emotions and logic are just one more.
My favorite example (if you read my other posts) is changing a complex computer language laden method of TEAR into ARWAT with the simple language of any adult - 13 years old and up. Elsewhere, I simplify this laboratory curiosity and foreign field tool into a powerhouse for everyday language use. Check out some of my other posts, if you want to see how I do this.
The second reason is because I respect the higher levels of learning and only desire to take the high level learning and make it useful to the average Joe or Jill. I'm acting in the function of a collaborator with what is already written by psychologists. I am NOT expert enough to enter into the grand debate on emotions at the 500 level, but I am smart enough to discern the basics from experts on a 100 level. It pays to know who knows at the highest levels. By-passing their research is a cardinal mistake.
My favorite examples of highly recognized psychologists who deal directly with the emotions are: Daniel Goleman, Robert Plutchik, Richard S. Lazarus, and Paul Ekman. Goleman wrote the most ground breaking book as far as the public is concerned in his book, Emotional Intelligence. I just think we should take what these guys have learned and use it in the classroom, etc. and not only in the therapist's office.
The third reason is that I am a teacher. As a teacher, I feel the primary part of my job is to deal with a mind and therefore with the brain of my students. I have read up in the area of brain science and find Goldman's work to be particularly convincing that the emotions respond before the logic does in the human brain. My view is we need to catch up to the latest in brain science. The other part of brain science is that emotions were at one time associated with social health. That is why the emotions were primarily assigned to psychologists over teachers. That view is now daily being proven to be unfounded. It is not so much a part of the psyche, the soul, or social health as it is part of mental health and the entire nervous system. I find that to be also the lesson of the latest biological advances. So teachers need to deal with emotions before logic.
I have tons of examples to share here. But I am just going to say that in many instances when I as a coach, a teacher, or a minister first addressed the emotions and then the logic, the results were much better than any other options. Logic alone or logic first only works in certain cases, but not on a routine basis. My greatest moments as a coach, teacher, or minister included both together and in that order. My favorite example from the bible is "the fear of Yahweh is the beginning of wisdom" in contrast to the fictional character Spock in Star Trek who says that "logic is the beginning of wisdom".
The fourth reason and not the least is that while I'm speaking about mental health, I think we have to remove a major stigma associated with this topic. The problem for psychology is their association with abnormal psychology more than normal psychology. There is a stigma that many people would not to go to a counselor to get help, because of their unfortunate associations. The other thing too is that it still is associated with having a social problem, assuming then that there is some breakdown in a person's family upbringing. These associations may be unfair, but they are not going away soon. I was told by a member of one of the minority groups that in those populations the stigma is far worse.
The advantage I have as a coach, a teacher or a minister is that the stigma is not there to the same degree. It is normal to need a coach, it is normal to need a teacher, and it is normal to need a minister's counsel at least now and then. Psychologists, again maybe unfairly, are associated with higher level problems and many people don't like the social stigma that goes with it. Suicidal people, for example, would much rather talk to a friend than to a therapist, though the friend may be totally unequipped for such a deep topic or a topic that deals with the emotions of the nervous system. They may be unable to really help, but at least it is considered within the norm.
Finally, I think associating emotions with the brain is the big breakthrough of psychology as a science, so I think professional teachers need to "buy back" this part of teaching. There was a fairly famous teacher of a fairly famous leader who did not agree with the negative views of emotion that were passed down to him. I am speaking here of Aristotle and Alexander the Great. Why can't teachers teach emotions as related to the mind and the logic of differing kinds that are associated with the mind and brain? I don't see any reason not except that they might feel they are outside their area of specialization. That has to change.
As a coach, I was always dealing with emotions. I grew up in a tradition in sports that took a more positive rather than negative view of emotions. I think the real issue is to re-establish the positive regard for emotions rather than a primarily negative one. This is not the first time in history that negative regard held a society back from its promise. Let's break open a new area of promise with teachers who want to tackle emotions and psychologists who agree their handling it alone is overwhelming their system of treatment and help.
So that is why I think I as a coach, a teacher, and a minister can say something about emotions without being a full-blown psychologist. I think it is central to all three and it has to be applied at a younger age level than when people are already in serious trouble. I hope this encourages especially teachers to take back their responsibility. Let's get this done. Our schools need great teachers again.
Sincerely,
Jon
I really appreciate you asking. You are breaking the silence, so now we can move forward. There is a number of great reasons. But silence on your question does not speak, words do. So let me answer your great question.
The first reason to listen to me is that I have been simplifying difficult things for younger students for years. My favorite school age to teach is junior highers. At that level, you had better have the ability to simplify 500 level course work down to 100 level course work. Over the years, I have simplified a lot of things that were given to me in a complex package. Emotions and logic are just one more.
My favorite example (if you read my other posts) is changing a complex computer language laden method of TEAR into ARWAT with the simple language of any adult - 13 years old and up. Elsewhere, I simplify this laboratory curiosity and foreign field tool into a powerhouse for everyday language use. Check out some of my other posts, if you want to see how I do this.
The second reason is because I respect the higher levels of learning and only desire to take the high level learning and make it useful to the average Joe or Jill. I'm acting in the function of a collaborator with what is already written by psychologists. I am NOT expert enough to enter into the grand debate on emotions at the 500 level, but I am smart enough to discern the basics from experts on a 100 level. It pays to know who knows at the highest levels. By-passing their research is a cardinal mistake.
My favorite examples of highly recognized psychologists who deal directly with the emotions are: Daniel Goleman, Robert Plutchik, Richard S. Lazarus, and Paul Ekman. Goleman wrote the most ground breaking book as far as the public is concerned in his book, Emotional Intelligence. I just think we should take what these guys have learned and use it in the classroom, etc. and not only in the therapist's office.
The third reason is that I am a teacher. As a teacher, I feel the primary part of my job is to deal with a mind and therefore with the brain of my students. I have read up in the area of brain science and find Goldman's work to be particularly convincing that the emotions respond before the logic does in the human brain. My view is we need to catch up to the latest in brain science. The other part of brain science is that emotions were at one time associated with social health. That is why the emotions were primarily assigned to psychologists over teachers. That view is now daily being proven to be unfounded. It is not so much a part of the psyche, the soul, or social health as it is part of mental health and the entire nervous system. I find that to be also the lesson of the latest biological advances. So teachers need to deal with emotions before logic.
I have tons of examples to share here. But I am just going to say that in many instances when I as a coach, a teacher, or a minister first addressed the emotions and then the logic, the results were much better than any other options. Logic alone or logic first only works in certain cases, but not on a routine basis. My greatest moments as a coach, teacher, or minister included both together and in that order. My favorite example from the bible is "the fear of Yahweh is the beginning of wisdom" in contrast to the fictional character Spock in Star Trek who says that "logic is the beginning of wisdom".
The fourth reason and not the least is that while I'm speaking about mental health, I think we have to remove a major stigma associated with this topic. The problem for psychology is their association with abnormal psychology more than normal psychology. There is a stigma that many people would not to go to a counselor to get help, because of their unfortunate associations. The other thing too is that it still is associated with having a social problem, assuming then that there is some breakdown in a person's family upbringing. These associations may be unfair, but they are not going away soon. I was told by a member of one of the minority groups that in those populations the stigma is far worse.
The advantage I have as a coach, a teacher or a minister is that the stigma is not there to the same degree. It is normal to need a coach, it is normal to need a teacher, and it is normal to need a minister's counsel at least now and then. Psychologists, again maybe unfairly, are associated with higher level problems and many people don't like the social stigma that goes with it. Suicidal people, for example, would much rather talk to a friend than to a therapist, though the friend may be totally unequipped for such a deep topic or a topic that deals with the emotions of the nervous system. They may be unable to really help, but at least it is considered within the norm.
Finally, I think associating emotions with the brain is the big breakthrough of psychology as a science, so I think professional teachers need to "buy back" this part of teaching. There was a fairly famous teacher of a fairly famous leader who did not agree with the negative views of emotion that were passed down to him. I am speaking here of Aristotle and Alexander the Great. Why can't teachers teach emotions as related to the mind and the logic of differing kinds that are associated with the mind and brain? I don't see any reason not except that they might feel they are outside their area of specialization. That has to change.
As a coach, I was always dealing with emotions. I grew up in a tradition in sports that took a more positive rather than negative view of emotions. I think the real issue is to re-establish the positive regard for emotions rather than a primarily negative one. This is not the first time in history that negative regard held a society back from its promise. Let's break open a new area of promise with teachers who want to tackle emotions and psychologists who agree their handling it alone is overwhelming their system of treatment and help.
So that is why I think I as a coach, a teacher, and a minister can say something about emotions without being a full-blown psychologist. I think it is central to all three and it has to be applied at a younger age level than when people are already in serious trouble. I hope this encourages especially teachers to take back their responsibility. Let's get this done. Our schools need great teachers again.
Sincerely,
Jon
Communication Basics: Pondeing the Emotions of What and the Logic of Which
I have an idea that is worth pondering and might later be worthy of acceptance rather than rejection. The idea is that the emotions of the nervous system may deal more with the question of what and the logical part of the nervous system with the question of which. The emotions may be more connected with "know" and the logic with "discern". As an example, there is a Bible passage in Isaiah, where it refers to "before he knew to discern".
Here is another example of what I mean. Emotions like fear or confidence don't seem to distinguish between how and why questions. But logically these distinctions are important in the course of action. Could it be that the emotions simply indicate whether we appear strong or weak? If strong, then we feel confidence. If weak, we feel fear. Could it be that the logical aspect then looks more at the issue of opportunity or threat?
If these hints are on the right course, then it could be that the emotions and logic deal with both parts of a SWOT analysis, and also in the same order chronologically. Strengths and weaknesses would be the concern of our emotional assessment and opportunities or threats would be the concern of our logical assessment.
So it may be worth pondering, whether in fact emotions do address more the question of what: strong or weak. It also may be worth pondering whether logic does address more the question of which: opportunity or threat. In the end, we'll find out one way or the other if these ideas are the strong and courageous or of a weak and shrinking kind. Happy pondering.
Sincerely,
Jon
Here is another example of what I mean. Emotions like fear or confidence don't seem to distinguish between how and why questions. But logically these distinctions are important in the course of action. Could it be that the emotions simply indicate whether we appear strong or weak? If strong, then we feel confidence. If weak, we feel fear. Could it be that the logical aspect then looks more at the issue of opportunity or threat?
If these hints are on the right course, then it could be that the emotions and logic deal with both parts of a SWOT analysis, and also in the same order chronologically. Strengths and weaknesses would be the concern of our emotional assessment and opportunities or threats would be the concern of our logical assessment.
So it may be worth pondering, whether in fact emotions do address more the question of what: strong or weak. It also may be worth pondering whether logic does address more the question of which: opportunity or threat. In the end, we'll find out one way or the other if these ideas are the strong and courageous or of a weak and shrinking kind. Happy pondering.
Sincerely,
Jon
Communication Basics: My Common Sense Foundation and My Path to It
The foundation for my communication basics is in common sense that is not very technical, but my journey has taken me through some of the technical materials and I just want to share some of that journey that might provoke discussion among the specialist and the experts. The main thing is to follow the common sense argument. But before it developed, I learned quite a bit from the following teachers (only 2 -3 I never met or talked directly to) at higher levels of learning.
In the 80s, there was first John S. Piper, Tom Steller, William A. Smalley, Lois Malcolm, Donald N. Larson, and James Hurd. Later came B. Wayne Johnson, Claude Bowen, Dale Carnegie, Paul J. Meyer, and Peter F. Drucker.
In the 90s, it was Drucker (again), Daniel P. Fuller, Robert "Bobby" Clinton, Eugene A. Nida, Rick Warren, and Wooden. Later came David Schierenbeck, Robert Stein, Gary A. Smith, Thomas A. Schreiner, David Clark, and James Brooks.
In the 2000s, it was David Sulack, Galen Call, Rick Thoman, Roger Lutz, Millard Erickson, and Nils Friberg. Later it was Dwight Perry, Roger Buck, Tom Collins, Darrell Amacker , Steve Pedersen ,and Walter Kaiser.
Since 2010, it was Kaiser (again), Arnold Klukas, Allen P. Ross, Garwood Anderson, Stephen Peay, and Thomas L. Holtzen. The later remains to be seen the future. It will likely include Hopp, etc.
In 2010, I first began to use materials directly addressing the issue of emotions. Before that time, I was mostly familiar with Dan Goleman's book, Emotional Intelligence. In 2010, I began using the emotion wheel developed by Plutchik and even tried to develop my own emotional charts based on my logic tool that I learned over a period from the early 80s and began to use very frequently from 2004 forward.
Here is how I viewed the emotions in 2010:
[intentionally left out until after my book is published later in 2014]
Here is how I would chart them today:
[intentionally left out until after my book is published later in 2014]
It is in late 2013, that I realized the common sense level support for my ideas. It was November 18th, 2013 to be more exact. The idea is that the greatest words are in one sense the least when it comes to foundational support and that the least words are the greatest whose very high frequency we take for granted makes them the real basis especially for the logic of language, but also for the emotions.
For the emotions a great example is that of anger and our use of the words "let" and the words "not ... let". For any one of the emotions there are basic words like these that show the great importance of addressing not only the logic of the brain, but also its emotion.
So the next time someone says that this is all so simple, or why didn't I see it sooner, they need to consider sometimes you travel through the complex and high level to reach the simple and low level. I only hope that from this point forward more can find the simple and low level road first. I took the high road, but taking the low road first is the best way to learn. The other route nearly killed me a few times! Take care.
Sincerely,
Jon
In the 80s, there was first John S. Piper, Tom Steller, William A. Smalley, Lois Malcolm, Donald N. Larson, and James Hurd. Later came B. Wayne Johnson, Claude Bowen, Dale Carnegie, Paul J. Meyer, and Peter F. Drucker.
In the 90s, it was Drucker (again), Daniel P. Fuller, Robert "Bobby" Clinton, Eugene A. Nida, Rick Warren, and Wooden. Later came David Schierenbeck, Robert Stein, Gary A. Smith, Thomas A. Schreiner, David Clark, and James Brooks.
In the 2000s, it was David Sulack, Galen Call, Rick Thoman, Roger Lutz, Millard Erickson, and Nils Friberg. Later it was Dwight Perry, Roger Buck, Tom Collins, Darrell Amacker , Steve Pedersen ,and Walter Kaiser.
Since 2010, it was Kaiser (again), Arnold Klukas, Allen P. Ross, Garwood Anderson, Stephen Peay, and Thomas L. Holtzen. The later remains to be seen the future. It will likely include Hopp, etc.
In 2010, I first began to use materials directly addressing the issue of emotions. Before that time, I was mostly familiar with Dan Goleman's book, Emotional Intelligence. In 2010, I began using the emotion wheel developed by Plutchik and even tried to develop my own emotional charts based on my logic tool that I learned over a period from the early 80s and began to use very frequently from 2004 forward.
Here is how I viewed the emotions in 2010:
[intentionally left out until after my book is published later in 2014]
Here is how I would chart them today:
[intentionally left out until after my book is published later in 2014]
It is in late 2013, that I realized the common sense level support for my ideas. It was November 18th, 2013 to be more exact. The idea is that the greatest words are in one sense the least when it comes to foundational support and that the least words are the greatest whose very high frequency we take for granted makes them the real basis especially for the logic of language, but also for the emotions.
For the emotions a great example is that of anger and our use of the words "let" and the words "not ... let". For any one of the emotions there are basic words like these that show the great importance of addressing not only the logic of the brain, but also its emotion.
So the next time someone says that this is all so simple, or why didn't I see it sooner, they need to consider sometimes you travel through the complex and high level to reach the simple and low level. I only hope that from this point forward more can find the simple and low level road first. I took the high road, but taking the low road first is the best way to learn. The other route nearly killed me a few times! Take care.
Sincerely,
Jon
Thursday, July 24, 2014
Communication Basics: Seeing the Unseen
I've got a great question: "How do I get people to see something that they don't see?" I'm not sure exactly what is the best way to make it happen. It gets at: "Why is it that they can't see and how is it that I came to see something that I previously did not see?"
How does that happen? It seems possible that analogies, similies, allegories, fables, and parables are ways it happens Could it be that the familiar (something we see everyday) can help us see something unfamiliar (something we miss everyday)?
Could that be why Jesus resorted so frequently to parables and to asking people to "behold" what they were missing in plain view? He said one of the reasons he came was to give sight to the blind.
It just might be that the best way to offer sight is to offer a good story that has all the elements of familiarity to teach us to see the unfamiliar. Who knows?
Sincerely,
Jon
How does that happen? It seems possible that analogies, similies, allegories, fables, and parables are ways it happens Could it be that the familiar (something we see everyday) can help us see something unfamiliar (something we miss everyday)?
Could that be why Jesus resorted so frequently to parables and to asking people to "behold" what they were missing in plain view? He said one of the reasons he came was to give sight to the blind.
It just might be that the best way to offer sight is to offer a good story that has all the elements of familiarity to teach us to see the unfamiliar. Who knows?
Sincerely,
Jon
Communication Basics: Being Clever in our Communication
A part of speaking well is to have a good catch phrase that captures the audience's attention. There is one that has caught on in Christian circles in recent years. It is memorable, so it is often quoted (though in the middle of summer, it is out of season). It is: "We need to put Christ back into Christmas". This statement is very clever whether true or false.
I can think of an opposing catch phrase for those who love Jesus more than Christians. They might say: "We need to put Christ back into Christian". That is equally clever. What might be even better is: "We need to put Christ back into Christianity". I have to agree with both of these statements personally.
I recently heard a Christian video series that wanted to eliminate the use of Christian, because it was a name from outsiders and because Christian was not defined. How can a word be better defined? Christ is the central part of the word Christian. He defined a lot of things as to what a Christian should be. Sometimes we can be a bit too clever.
So back to my point. We can be very clever in our communication by using catchphrases that are very memorable. I think that remains true whether or not the catchphrase itself is true. A few thoughts here to ponder, but don't miss the importance of being clever in a helpful way for our audiences.
Sincerely,
Jon
I can think of an opposing catch phrase for those who love Jesus more than Christians. They might say: "We need to put Christ back into Christian". That is equally clever. What might be even better is: "We need to put Christ back into Christianity". I have to agree with both of these statements personally.
I recently heard a Christian video series that wanted to eliminate the use of Christian, because it was a name from outsiders and because Christian was not defined. How can a word be better defined? Christ is the central part of the word Christian. He defined a lot of things as to what a Christian should be. Sometimes we can be a bit too clever.
So back to my point. We can be very clever in our communication by using catchphrases that are very memorable. I think that remains true whether or not the catchphrase itself is true. A few thoughts here to ponder, but don't miss the importance of being clever in a helpful way for our audiences.
Sincerely,
Jon
Communication Basics: Revising the Class Names of Dr. William A. Smalley and Dr. Donald N. Larson
When I was an undergrad, I sat under two geniuses. They both were very brilliant in their own respective ways. They both had their strengths. Dr. Smalley was able to mediate differing parties. Dr. Larson was able to make was seemed complex, simple. That is what their teaching colleagues at least said about them. I want to share a part of their genius again, but this time I want to make some improvements and make explicit why I think their genius was better than realized.
So let's begin with how I would organize their class names based on my ARWAT method (pronounced "Are what?")
Amounts
Continuity and Change
Relationships
Bond and Barrier
Wholes
Models and Theories
Actions
Rule and Freedom
Things
Sense and Nonsense
These classes in this type of arrangement were the core classes of their curriculum minus introductory classes and specialty classes. In my view, since no one who knew these gentlemen, who unfortunately are no longer available to question, can explain their class organization, I think the best guess is that they used the TEAR method.
TEAR is the technical precursor for my ARWAT organizational method. That is why I think my layout of their courses works really well.
I also think they got some of their ideas for these class names from anthropological materials. I think they may have especially relied upon Spradley and McCurdy's writings in anthropology.
So why do I think there needs to be some improvement? In American culture there are certain culture values that receive a great deal of positive press. Those words that have a positive connotation in our culture are: change, theories (since Thomas Kuhn), and freedom. There is a problem with two other second members of their grouping. Those do not fall into the category of positive values. They are: barrier and nonsense. So what I want to do is replace these two negatives with two positives to fit with the other three sets as far as establishing complete consistency. So here it goes. My attempt to improve on their brilliant work.
When it comes to bond and barrier, I think the American value or virtue that should replace barrier (not a virtue) is independence. You might even have heard of the Declaration of Independence. Independence is certainly a positive break from the negative of a barrier. Independence and liberty are both pretty well written in granite as positive values that Americans treasure. So in line with that value, I would like to change things to read, "bond and break". One of the reasons for my choice of break over independence is the same first letter of "b" pattern as a memory tool. But let's face it, break is a good synonym for independence.
When it comes to sense and nonsense, I cannot think of an American who would say that they value nonsense. In fact, they probably would say that they would prefer some common sense in place of nonsense. Did I just hear an "Amen" to that? I thought so. Education is a great value in the United States that is supposed to stamp out nonsense. We all know that it doesn't always do that. But its intention is certainly to give sight through knowledge to the blind through ignorance. So in line with education as a value, I would like to change things to read, "sense and school". I like school over educate again because of the agreement of first letters in each word. It gives it a more pleasant and memorable ring.
So let me re-chart all of their core classes:
Amounts
Continuity and Change
Relationships
Bond and Break
Wholes
Models and Theories
Actions
Rule and Freedom
Things
Sense and School
This is just another demonstration of how ARWAT can be used as one tool to make a lot of improvements. The other thing is perseverance. It took me a long time to realize the genius of Smalley and Larson's class names. Please ponder these ideas in your heart, if initially it does not make sense to you. Enough patience and its genius will finally show itself. It did for me. I owe both of those teachers more than I could ever repay. I hope I can sufficiently honor their legacies, if that is even possible. Take care.
Sincerely,
Jon
So let's begin with how I would organize their class names based on my ARWAT method (pronounced "Are what?")
Amounts
Continuity and Change
Relationships
Bond and Barrier
Wholes
Models and Theories
Actions
Rule and Freedom
Things
Sense and Nonsense
These classes in this type of arrangement were the core classes of their curriculum minus introductory classes and specialty classes. In my view, since no one who knew these gentlemen, who unfortunately are no longer available to question, can explain their class organization, I think the best guess is that they used the TEAR method.
TEAR is the technical precursor for my ARWAT organizational method. That is why I think my layout of their courses works really well.
I also think they got some of their ideas for these class names from anthropological materials. I think they may have especially relied upon Spradley and McCurdy's writings in anthropology.
So why do I think there needs to be some improvement? In American culture there are certain culture values that receive a great deal of positive press. Those words that have a positive connotation in our culture are: change, theories (since Thomas Kuhn), and freedom. There is a problem with two other second members of their grouping. Those do not fall into the category of positive values. They are: barrier and nonsense. So what I want to do is replace these two negatives with two positives to fit with the other three sets as far as establishing complete consistency. So here it goes. My attempt to improve on their brilliant work.
When it comes to bond and barrier, I think the American value or virtue that should replace barrier (not a virtue) is independence. You might even have heard of the Declaration of Independence. Independence is certainly a positive break from the negative of a barrier. Independence and liberty are both pretty well written in granite as positive values that Americans treasure. So in line with that value, I would like to change things to read, "bond and break". One of the reasons for my choice of break over independence is the same first letter of "b" pattern as a memory tool. But let's face it, break is a good synonym for independence.
When it comes to sense and nonsense, I cannot think of an American who would say that they value nonsense. In fact, they probably would say that they would prefer some common sense in place of nonsense. Did I just hear an "Amen" to that? I thought so. Education is a great value in the United States that is supposed to stamp out nonsense. We all know that it doesn't always do that. But its intention is certainly to give sight through knowledge to the blind through ignorance. So in line with education as a value, I would like to change things to read, "sense and school". I like school over educate again because of the agreement of first letters in each word. It gives it a more pleasant and memorable ring.
So let me re-chart all of their core classes:
Amounts
Continuity and Change
Relationships
Bond and Break
Wholes
Models and Theories
Actions
Rule and Freedom
Things
Sense and School
This is just another demonstration of how ARWAT can be used as one tool to make a lot of improvements. The other thing is perseverance. It took me a long time to realize the genius of Smalley and Larson's class names. Please ponder these ideas in your heart, if initially it does not make sense to you. Enough patience and its genius will finally show itself. It did for me. I owe both of those teachers more than I could ever repay. I hope I can sufficiently honor their legacies, if that is even possible. Take care.
Sincerely,
Jon
Communication Basics: Classical and Cutting Edge (the story of Scott Canon)
My freshman year of college I had a roommate who everybody questioned how we got along. Actually, it was a very good match. He stretched me in one cool way in particular. He had a really good receiver, a great turntable, and an awesome speakers. But his equipment wasn't the only cool thing.
Cooler yet, he listened to classical music in the morning and edgy rock and roll at night (or do I have that backwards?). The same holds true for me today. When it comes to communication, I think we need to read the classics in rhetoric in the morning and read the best communication research of the 21st century in the afternoon. Or you can reverse that if you like. Neither one alone is cool enough!
So when you read my comments on communication, sometimes I'll be reading something from B.C. and other times something from A.D. I hope that means we can still get along as classmates of communication. I think it just might stretch you like Scott's music stretched me.
Stretching by the way is a good way to avoid injury. But also don't overstretch. But that is another story. .
Sincerely
Jon
P.S. This entry is dedicated to Scott Canon, who stretched me and strengthened me. We still are getting along just fine, based on my last conversation with him a few years ago.
Cooler yet, he listened to classical music in the morning and edgy rock and roll at night (or do I have that backwards?). The same holds true for me today. When it comes to communication, I think we need to read the classics in rhetoric in the morning and read the best communication research of the 21st century in the afternoon. Or you can reverse that if you like. Neither one alone is cool enough!
So when you read my comments on communication, sometimes I'll be reading something from B.C. and other times something from A.D. I hope that means we can still get along as classmates of communication. I think it just might stretch you like Scott's music stretched me.
Stretching by the way is a good way to avoid injury. But also don't overstretch. But that is another story. .
Sincerely
Jon
P.S. This entry is dedicated to Scott Canon, who stretched me and strengthened me. We still are getting along just fine, based on my last conversation with him a few years ago.
Communication Basics: The Ability to Ponder not just Accept or Reject as Shameful
I wish I could recall the quote from Aristotle in full. The basic gist was that the ability to wonder or ponder about something rather than to accept or reject as shameful is a virtue.
I recall here the story of Joseph in Genesis in which Joseph's brothers reject his dream and its interpretation as foolish, but Jacob his father pondered these things in her heart. I believe that Mary, the mother of Jesus, also pondered some of the things said about her son. In both cases, neither parent immediately accepted or rejected what was said about the future. Rather they pondered them so that later they could either accept or reject what was said. In both cases, these parents both accepted what was said in the end.
So when someone communicates with you, don't think you must reject something just because right at that moment you cannot accept it. You have another option. You can instead ponder over what you cannot immediately accept. So ponder away when acceptance or rejection is premature. Are you now pondering what I have said?
Sincerely,
Jon
I recall here the story of Joseph in Genesis in which Joseph's brothers reject his dream and its interpretation as foolish, but Jacob his father pondered these things in her heart. I believe that Mary, the mother of Jesus, also pondered some of the things said about her son. In both cases, neither parent immediately accepted or rejected what was said about the future. Rather they pondered them so that later they could either accept or reject what was said. In both cases, these parents both accepted what was said in the end.
So when someone communicates with you, don't think you must reject something just because right at that moment you cannot accept it. You have another option. You can instead ponder over what you cannot immediately accept. So ponder away when acceptance or rejection is premature. Are you now pondering what I have said?
Sincerely,
Jon
Communication Basics: Rejoice the Emotion, the Logic of Relationship, and the Gladness Altogether
Psalms 14:7 "Who will bring the salvation of Israel out of Zion? When Yahweh brings back the captivity of his people, Jacob shall rejoice Israel shall be glad." This is my own literal translation which really does not differ significantly from most translations. .
Notice the logic of "brings back the captivity of his people". Notice too the emotion of "rejoice". Using the lesson from Geometry 101 that there is a difference between parallel lines that never meet and perpendicular lines that do meet, also notice the word "glad". Could it be that "glad" is the point where both "brings back the captivity of his people" and "rejoice" come together?
The two together in the word "glad" could be a combination of the greater axis of rejoice coming together with the lesser axis of "brings back the captivity of his people", resulting in the greatest point of origin (as it is called in geomety) of "glad".
Glad would then be a combination of the emotion of rejoice and the logic of a renewed relationship. This could also then help us nail down the difference between the feelings of "rejoice" and the more inclusive notion of being "glad". This is something to ponder, if you are not ready to accept it.
Sincerely,
Jon
Notice the logic of "brings back the captivity of his people". Notice too the emotion of "rejoice". Using the lesson from Geometry 101 that there is a difference between parallel lines that never meet and perpendicular lines that do meet, also notice the word "glad". Could it be that "glad" is the point where both "brings back the captivity of his people" and "rejoice" come together?
The two together in the word "glad" could be a combination of the greater axis of rejoice coming together with the lesser axis of "brings back the captivity of his people", resulting in the greatest point of origin (as it is called in geomety) of "glad".
Glad would then be a combination of the emotion of rejoice and the logic of a renewed relationship. This could also then help us nail down the difference between the feelings of "rejoice" and the more inclusive notion of being "glad". This is something to ponder, if you are not ready to accept it.
Sincerely,
Jon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
