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
Thursday, July 24, 2014
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
Friday, May 30, 2014
Communication Basics: Emotional Sense Will Come Before Rational Sense
For some crazy reason, I was taught that the emotions are the caboose of my faith and reason the engine of my faith. This way of viewing things, coming off of a battle with depression in the 80s, led me to make more errors (or commit more sins) in five to 10 years than all my prior experience of the Christian faith combined. I remember real well seeing the diagrams where faith, or rational faith to be precise, came before the cars on the tracks with the caboose of feelings at the rear. I believe both Campus Crusade (now CRU) and the Billy Graham Association used this picture extensively. The combination of my bad experience, Dan Goleman's work on emotional intelligence, and studying Scripture have convinced me that Rev. Tim Keller is now right when he says that emotions are not the caboose of our faith according to a recent article in Christianity Today.
The image that I have spoken about is pictured below:
It is found in the booklet called The Four Spiritual Laws pictured below:
But to head off any objections quickly in advance, let me point out that my putting emotions before reason does NOT result in feelings, followed by faith and then followed by fact. The diagram, if reversed as below has mixed categories logically that don't belong together. So up front I disavow any view that looks like the following illogical (Do you see how I still value logic and reason?) scheme:
Now that I have answered that concern up front let's continue. According to Goleman, my Bible and Tim Keller, our emotions have to come before our reason or rationality. But let's be clear, second goes with first. The best of all worlds has the two working together like the first and second commandments. The first commandment is the greater, the second commandment is the lesser between the two and the two together for the greatest commandment. I learned this principle of greater, lesser, and greatest first from my studying at the Center for Biblical Research in Pasadena, CA (now in Redlands, CA. Dr. William Bean taught all of us the importance of knowing the distinction of greater and lesser. But this was really driven home to me later with the example of how KJV translators viewed how they were to translate the word for justice. In some contexts, when the Hebrew word meant justice in addition to rightewousess it is translated as justice. But at other times when it stands for both both righteousness and justice it was to be translated as judgment.
So let's look at some examples of greater and lesser before moving back to the topic of emotional and rational. Let's lay out what I have just said in a more graphic format:
GREATER LESSER GREATEST
Righteousness Justice Judgment
Plumb line Level line Level (er) (vertical and horizontal)
1st commandment 2nd commandment 2nd commandment sums up 1 & 2
Living or dead Lion or dog Living Lion over all other combos
Food or not food Full loaf or half-loaf The full loaf of food is greatest
You get the pattern. So what is the pattern I see for emotions and reason? My answer is:
GREATER LESSER GREATEST
Emotional Logical, rational Rational emotion (credibility)
If you disagree with my order consider this. So do the charts that many Christians grew up with in the evangelical setting. You ought to react that way based on your education. But please take your education another step forward. Search the Scriptures to see if what they taught you in pubic or private school is true.
People claim all the time that Scripture is their only rule and authority, but in actual mental health deny it. They respond out of a defensiveness in the sense that they do not want to hear that their position is not good enough. Or worse yet, they feel a sense of grief over having to let go of an idea they so prized. So let's bring Scripture itself into this messy situation.
We read in any translation I have ever read: "the fear of the LORD [Yahweh] is the beginning of wisdom". To me the beginning comes first. So the emotion of fear comes before the reason of wisdom. Note that it does not say that "wisdom of the LORD [Yahweh] is the beginning of fear". This is not the only place we see mention of emotion before reason. "Fear not, for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy". Notice that the reference is first to fear and then to reason.
Note to this diagram that shows somewhat (the best would be where there is more overlap) my point if you move from right to left like the Hebrews:
THE mistake people make is that they think that the greater and lesser are mutually exclusive rather than realizing that they both are necessary to reach the greatest. Consider this example. The recent killings and suicide at Santa Barbara were followed by deep expressions of grief and deep reason in some cases. In one expression alone the question was asked: "When will the insanity end?" This was asked by a father feeling the grief of losing his son, but also still in possession of his rational faculties. He has more credibility at this moment than anyone not touched by the tragedy both because of his grief but also because of his reason. The danger for the rest of us is that we can ignore his grief and we can sidestep his rationality. He clearly feels the grief and sees the insanity. He knows delay does not make sense in light of this continuing new tide of the same kind of outcomes. So why do he rest of us think it does make sense emotionally and rationally? Could it be that we have become cold to the emotion and only cold rationalists able to delay, because his emotion does not touch our own? Have we become so bad at communication that we can't even listen well to either emotion or reason?
It appears we have. There is nothing that is calling us to do something. We are going to do the same things again which means the insanity will happen again. We will once again bring in the emotional experts to heal the wounds rather than prevent the wounds. We will continue to bankrupt the system. WE will be so proud of ourselves for being ahead of past research and of making the latest discoveries. But this man is hurting, is he not? So, what if we or our best friend is next? So what if we only ignore him? I got a feeling a lot of people might feel like he does, that they have been slighted yet again. That just sets off further anger that is unresolved. And anger was the emotion involved in the killings.
No, emotions cannot be sidestepped, they must be faced. It is the only way to begin to diminish anger. But don't take my word for it. Take the word of the man who no longer has a son and who feels now that his question is not being addressed in a prompt fashion. All the rest of us must look slow to him.
Talk to Rev. Tmothy Keller, talk to Daniel Goleman. But more than that think about what the title Christianity TODAY (my emphasis) says in relation to the man's question of "When?". Can we say TODAY to this man is when we will do something. Will you do something TODAY? Will you contact me TODAY and help me form a team response? Or will your emotions continue to run just a little later on the tracks than it should. Will the caboose arrive just a little late, when the engine arrived on time? Will it continue arriving late with some well-worn excuse or can we hear the whistle of our emotions that says get on board with this guy now and do something. Let's stop the insanity NOW, not LATER.
Don't fall into the errors (sins) of the caboose like I did. I pray that I have communicated with you in such a way that you cannot ignore that man's grief nor the grief you can feel through him. Ask the man who has lost a son, how it feels and why he feels the way he does. I think he can prove more than I can at this moment. Go ask him, if you still don't think emotions comes first. Should he not feel grief first and most? May God's word move you to both emotion and reason and then to action. May God bless all of us to learn to communicate in this way. Remember the greater and the lesser together are the greatest. That man gave all of us an expression that was the greatest statement of all. Respond to it. Don't just sit there. How can you do that? You can't, right? I can't. So I am doing what I can. I pray you will too.
Sincerely,
Jon,
A friend of a man with
the courage to speak what
he feels eloquently.
The image that I have spoken about is pictured below:
It is found in the booklet called The Four Spiritual Laws pictured below:
But to head off any objections quickly in advance, let me point out that my putting emotions before reason does NOT result in feelings, followed by faith and then followed by fact. The diagram, if reversed as below has mixed categories logically that don't belong together. So up front I disavow any view that looks like the following illogical (Do you see how I still value logic and reason?) scheme:
Now that I have answered that concern up front let's continue. According to Goleman, my Bible and Tim Keller, our emotions have to come before our reason or rationality. But let's be clear, second goes with first. The best of all worlds has the two working together like the first and second commandments. The first commandment is the greater, the second commandment is the lesser between the two and the two together for the greatest commandment. I learned this principle of greater, lesser, and greatest first from my studying at the Center for Biblical Research in Pasadena, CA (now in Redlands, CA. Dr. William Bean taught all of us the importance of knowing the distinction of greater and lesser. But this was really driven home to me later with the example of how KJV translators viewed how they were to translate the word for justice. In some contexts, when the Hebrew word meant justice in addition to rightewousess it is translated as justice. But at other times when it stands for both both righteousness and justice it was to be translated as judgment.
So let's look at some examples of greater and lesser before moving back to the topic of emotional and rational. Let's lay out what I have just said in a more graphic format:
GREATER LESSER GREATEST
Righteousness Justice Judgment
Plumb line Level line Level (er) (vertical and horizontal)
1st commandment 2nd commandment 2nd commandment sums up 1 & 2
Living or dead Lion or dog Living Lion over all other combos
Food or not food Full loaf or half-loaf The full loaf of food is greatest
You get the pattern. So what is the pattern I see for emotions and reason? My answer is:
GREATER LESSER GREATEST
Emotional Logical, rational Rational emotion (credibility)
If you disagree with my order consider this. So do the charts that many Christians grew up with in the evangelical setting. You ought to react that way based on your education. But please take your education another step forward. Search the Scriptures to see if what they taught you in pubic or private school is true.
People claim all the time that Scripture is their only rule and authority, but in actual mental health deny it. They respond out of a defensiveness in the sense that they do not want to hear that their position is not good enough. Or worse yet, they feel a sense of grief over having to let go of an idea they so prized. So let's bring Scripture itself into this messy situation.
We read in any translation I have ever read: "the fear of the LORD [Yahweh] is the beginning of wisdom". To me the beginning comes first. So the emotion of fear comes before the reason of wisdom. Note that it does not say that "wisdom of the LORD [Yahweh] is the beginning of fear". This is not the only place we see mention of emotion before reason. "Fear not, for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy". Notice that the reference is first to fear and then to reason.
Note to this diagram that shows somewhat (the best would be where there is more overlap) my point if you move from right to left like the Hebrews:
THE mistake people make is that they think that the greater and lesser are mutually exclusive rather than realizing that they both are necessary to reach the greatest. Consider this example. The recent killings and suicide at Santa Barbara were followed by deep expressions of grief and deep reason in some cases. In one expression alone the question was asked: "When will the insanity end?" This was asked by a father feeling the grief of losing his son, but also still in possession of his rational faculties. He has more credibility at this moment than anyone not touched by the tragedy both because of his grief but also because of his reason. The danger for the rest of us is that we can ignore his grief and we can sidestep his rationality. He clearly feels the grief and sees the insanity. He knows delay does not make sense in light of this continuing new tide of the same kind of outcomes. So why do he rest of us think it does make sense emotionally and rationally? Could it be that we have become cold to the emotion and only cold rationalists able to delay, because his emotion does not touch our own? Have we become so bad at communication that we can't even listen well to either emotion or reason?
It appears we have. There is nothing that is calling us to do something. We are going to do the same things again which means the insanity will happen again. We will once again bring in the emotional experts to heal the wounds rather than prevent the wounds. We will continue to bankrupt the system. WE will be so proud of ourselves for being ahead of past research and of making the latest discoveries. But this man is hurting, is he not? So, what if we or our best friend is next? So what if we only ignore him? I got a feeling a lot of people might feel like he does, that they have been slighted yet again. That just sets off further anger that is unresolved. And anger was the emotion involved in the killings.
No, emotions cannot be sidestepped, they must be faced. It is the only way to begin to diminish anger. But don't take my word for it. Take the word of the man who no longer has a son and who feels now that his question is not being addressed in a prompt fashion. All the rest of us must look slow to him.
Talk to Rev. Tmothy Keller, talk to Daniel Goleman. But more than that think about what the title Christianity TODAY (my emphasis) says in relation to the man's question of "When?". Can we say TODAY to this man is when we will do something. Will you do something TODAY? Will you contact me TODAY and help me form a team response? Or will your emotions continue to run just a little later on the tracks than it should. Will the caboose arrive just a little late, when the engine arrived on time? Will it continue arriving late with some well-worn excuse or can we hear the whistle of our emotions that says get on board with this guy now and do something. Let's stop the insanity NOW, not LATER.
Don't fall into the errors (sins) of the caboose like I did. I pray that I have communicated with you in such a way that you cannot ignore that man's grief nor the grief you can feel through him. Ask the man who has lost a son, how it feels and why he feels the way he does. I think he can prove more than I can at this moment. Go ask him, if you still don't think emotions comes first. Should he not feel grief first and most? May God's word move you to both emotion and reason and then to action. May God bless all of us to learn to communicate in this way. Remember the greater and the lesser together are the greatest. That man gave all of us an expression that was the greatest statement of all. Respond to it. Don't just sit there. How can you do that? You can't, right? I can't. So I am doing what I can. I pray you will too.
Sincerely,
Jon,
A friend of a man with
the courage to speak what
he feels eloquently.
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
Communication 101: 10 Ways to Calm Down the Angry
You probably have heard that the first thing in defusing the angry is to stay calm. That is one part of some very good advice, when dealing with the angry. To be frank, I think dealing with angry people has been my hardest struggle, when it comes to my emotions. I am great at moving someone from fear to confidence, but not as good at moving someone from angry to calm. So I have been studying this task. Here is what I have learned so far (organizing it according to my IQ pattern found in my ARWAT method).
Here is the best advice I can give so far in ten fairly basic steps:
1. Get Engaged - ask the angry person questions to show you are listening.
2. Use Anger as a Meter - gauge their anger like you use a Geiger counter to alert you to the degree of the problem.
3. Assert Your Eyes or Hit the Road Together - Show you are not trying to avoid them through eye contact or get them to move with you rather than against you.by taking a walk together.
4. Tune In - get involved in listening to them fast and don't wait until anger has risen to the top of the bell curve where they are now totally out of control.
5. Own Up Maturely - make sure that own what is yours including your mistakes and admit them maturely and not condescendingly.
6. Lower Your Thermostat - stay calm while they are angry. It is back to that advice to return a soft answer in return for anger.
7. Take a Step Back - See things from their perspective without necessarily agreeing. Acknowledge what their concern is that has them angry.
8. Use Magic Phrases - Try things like, "Yes, I agree." or "You're right" or "I'm sorry". Nothing disarms like taking their side on anything you can agree on as common ground.
9. Don't Feed the Angry Person Data - this can say that you are not listening and that you are being disrespectful. Find instead some way to be respectful toward their concerns.
10. Set Limits - Say what you will let be and what you won't let be, because you get what you tolerate. If their rage is a little too melodramatic, a little too frequent, a little too abusive, then give them a chance to change to what you can tolerate from what is intolerable. Give them a different kind of choice.
I got the content for this from an article by Men's Health titled: 11 Ways to Calm Down an Angry Woman. I figured there is no way I couldn't learn from an article with that title. But like I said, I have re-organized it so that it follows my logical intelligence material (ARWAT) as well. That way the emotional and the logical brain can talk to each other more easily through parallels. So if you learn my logic tool as well as my emotional tool you should be able to make the emotions and logic work together which is better than either one alone by far.
Anyway, I hope these ideas give you a way from anger to calm at least for yourself and hopefully a way for yourself to help others to move from anger to calm. I sure wish I could do this like I can move someone from fear to confidence. That one I have known well for years due to some good teaching from my dad.
I wrote my points for moving from fear to confidence today, so maybe I can post those things tomorrow. So I hope you have found a better way to communicate, while considering the emotions of another person's mind and not just their mind's logic. Take care.
Sincerely,
Jon
.
Here is the best advice I can give so far in ten fairly basic steps:
1. Get Engaged - ask the angry person questions to show you are listening.
2. Use Anger as a Meter - gauge their anger like you use a Geiger counter to alert you to the degree of the problem.
3. Assert Your Eyes or Hit the Road Together - Show you are not trying to avoid them through eye contact or get them to move with you rather than against you.by taking a walk together.
4. Tune In - get involved in listening to them fast and don't wait until anger has risen to the top of the bell curve where they are now totally out of control.
5. Own Up Maturely - make sure that own what is yours including your mistakes and admit them maturely and not condescendingly.
6. Lower Your Thermostat - stay calm while they are angry. It is back to that advice to return a soft answer in return for anger.
7. Take a Step Back - See things from their perspective without necessarily agreeing. Acknowledge what their concern is that has them angry.
8. Use Magic Phrases - Try things like, "Yes, I agree." or "You're right" or "I'm sorry". Nothing disarms like taking their side on anything you can agree on as common ground.
9. Don't Feed the Angry Person Data - this can say that you are not listening and that you are being disrespectful. Find instead some way to be respectful toward their concerns.
10. Set Limits - Say what you will let be and what you won't let be, because you get what you tolerate. If their rage is a little too melodramatic, a little too frequent, a little too abusive, then give them a chance to change to what you can tolerate from what is intolerable. Give them a different kind of choice.
I got the content for this from an article by Men's Health titled: 11 Ways to Calm Down an Angry Woman. I figured there is no way I couldn't learn from an article with that title. But like I said, I have re-organized it so that it follows my logical intelligence material (ARWAT) as well. That way the emotional and the logical brain can talk to each other more easily through parallels. So if you learn my logic tool as well as my emotional tool you should be able to make the emotions and logic work together which is better than either one alone by far.
Anyway, I hope these ideas give you a way from anger to calm at least for yourself and hopefully a way for yourself to help others to move from anger to calm. I sure wish I could do this like I can move someone from fear to confidence. That one I have known well for years due to some good teaching from my dad.
I wrote my points for moving from fear to confidence today, so maybe I can post those things tomorrow. So I hope you have found a better way to communicate, while considering the emotions of another person's mind and not just their mind's logic. Take care.
Sincerely,
Jon
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
