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

Communication: Its Link to Two Kinds of Education

One of my professors in college (who I never had a course with, but for whom I analyzed a project he was working on) had a brilliant mind, when it came to understanding schools and education.  He was a linguist (a studier of language), but he was also more than that, because he analyzed the effectiveness of schools and found them lacking.  I agree with him that most educational programs can be found lacking

One of the key differences in my approach to language is that of having a different approach to learning than many programs do.  My approach consists of a combination of two kinds of education.  The first is the knower-learner axis that is also more primary.  We begin doing this kind of education at the earliest age possible for communication.  The second is the teaacher-studier (student) axis that we begin in greater earnest the day we enter school and study communication there.   Dr. Larson said the ideal was a combination of both approaches.

My analogy for it is a vertical plumb line for the axis of knower-learner and a horizontal level line for the axis of teacher-studier (student).   Most people experience an excess of the second in terms of the way they have been educated.  This is unfortunate, since the best learning occurs when the knower-learner comes first and the teacher-studier comes second.  When they are working together in a balance and with the right prioritization, then people become the most educated and most successful at using their education effectively. 

This approach is not the same as the practical or pragmatic approach.  That view is simply replacing things with actions.  It is radical in its criticism of the school system.  It is short-sighted, because it takes one part of who we are as whole persons and focuses on another part of who we are rather than strengthening our smarts and minds about things and words.  The approach I take (and Dr. Larson took) strengthens education and makes people smarter rather than just making them more practiced. 

My educational approach does not change the goal nor the focus of education.  It rather strengthens education through a better balance and through the right prioritzation.   It makes people smarter. 

My best communication example for this comes out of my junior high years of learning French.  Our teacher, who was a zealot for the French language if ever there was one, was able to take a trip to France and use the skills she was teaching us in the classroom.  Unfortunatley for her, while she was a great teacher of French, she was not a great knower of French.  The French treated her badly for this and she was not at all happy about her experience.  It was a real disappointment for her, because she had such high expectations for this trip that today we would say was part of her "bucket list". 

If she had one native French speaker (a knower of French) she could speak with regularly before leaving the United States, her bad experience could have been avoided.   She could have been a learner learning from a knower.  In the model I suggesting, the point is not that she was a bad teacher (that she was not practical).  No, she was a great teaacher, but just not a great knower. 

So my approach to communication says to take this balanced approach seriously or you can easily end up unbalanced, embarassed, unhappy, and not just a little frustrated after all your study.  Make sure you learn first and study second together!  Then your communication skills or language skills will surpass those of many others. 

Sincerely,

Jon

P.S.  At some later time, if possible, I will try to add a Smart Art picture of what I am saying for greater clarity.