Understanding Conversation and the Ubiquitous Human Potpourri of Conflicted Opinions
What do people really say when they speak to each other? Why is there so much misunderstanding?
The explosion of psychological understanding that characterized the last prolific century progressed from the most disturbing mental experiences to more ordinary behavior. When the new psychological science at the turn of the century tied together symptoms and dreams, the grossly abnormal became continuous with normal human living. The same theoretical underpinnings exist behind both types of outcomes.
At a recent International Psychoanalytic Congress held in Chicago last week, the latest of these biennial gatherings penultimate among the social sciences, knowledge of the workings of the structures of the human mind advanced another niche, reaching to routine conversations.
People do not speak to each other but past each other, do not absorb and process what others say but pick and choose that which serves their own inner purposes. This 24/7 phenomenon, which plays a ubiquitous part in human life from Wars to broken friendships, was discussed in depth at a Round Table on "The Closed Mind" held at that Congress.
The Chairperson Jane Hall, commenting on the profusion or Babel of psychoanalytic theories, posed a question to the panel, "Why can't people say 'Oh, I never thought about it that way', or 'That is an interesting idea, let me think about it', or 'What you said and the way you said it sheds new light on the subject?' That would be an ability to strive for".
In my contribution to the panel, I confirmed the accuracy of that observation, stating that while it seemed a simple datum, it had profound ramifications, both for theory and in a practical sense for its widespread role in human affairs. It in fact applies generally and globally in life as much as to any specific professional or other group.
Approaching the subject analytically rather than as an advocate, from the usual position of the analyst equidistant between alternatives or both poles of any intractable conflict, I expanded the scope of the discussion to have it include the open as well as the closed mind, and the good as well as the bad aspects of each. "Because this discussion is about the negatives of a closed mind does not mean a fully open one is the answer." From the usual neutral position toward a dichotomous dilemma, the ground between the two alternatives, not unexpectedly, will turn out to be not black and white but gray.
Consider the following from the New Yorker on Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor: "When it comes to interpreting the Constitution, one can scarcely imagine a worse qualification than an open mind!! The issues are difficult and profound, and require a lifetime of study to master, and one would hope that Justices arrive with heads full of ideas about the document they are charged with understanding!!"
The same applies to any individual, and is a factor in analysis as well. A patient came away from an analysis with one explanation he remembered mostly: "in one ear and out the other"--a trend he had to watch out for--both as to what he learned, or failed to learn, in his analysis, and in his life before. An open mind is not a sieve. The ability to be open and the courage to embrace are both necessary--to be receptive to the new and able to retain what endures. Each can be deficient or excessive, indiscriminatingly open or rigidly closed.
The distortions of communication apply not only to what one says but how one listens. Filtering and selectivity occur 4 ways, to and from in both directions. One says what he feels he should, and hears what he wishes to hear. Every individual develops his own vocal signature, in what he says and how he says it, the rhythm, modulation, passive or assertive nature of his conversational tone. One can recognize a person by these clues as well as by any other.
As a result, the well-known Rashomon phenomenon occurs not only to every event but to every encounter. This accounts for the ubiquitous human potpourri of conflicted opinions, motivations and non-consensus. Since this applies to memory as well as perceptions, one must be careful when he speaks of truth, facts, reality, "what really happened?", or "what did he/she actually say?" Periodically, our interest turns to chaos theory.
This is not unfamiliar ground. These easy truths are "known", but not really, not consciously enough to be available for action. There is the known known and the unknown known--the latter, unconscious knowledge has less access to effective action. Remember the Jules Pfeiffer cartoons? Each day we read of what someone said, and in a bubble above what he really meant. The chuckle that followed indicated some recognition, but not insight that has effects. Humor imparts but also wards off the latter.
The entire subject is not new, although it always seems so. Over a quarter-century ago, in 1973, I was moved to write "On the Cacophony of Human Relations", pointing out, in the zeitgeist of the times, a universal human experience, the disharmony between men. "Despite a yearning for closeness and constancy, which is integral to human striving, alliances are shallow and fleeting, undependable, narcissistically oriented, and, as often as not, run a relentless course toward dissolution of relationships between men and women, husbands and wives, men and men, siblings, even parents and children. Recently a patient lamented...the fragility of friendships everywhere".
Why? What is behind this Balkanization of the entire world, people oppositional to and separated from people everywhere? The amassed analytic insights of the past century point to some of the ways related to the human mind. I would like to name a few.
First, I want to de-emphasize perhaps the most common explanatory target, the role of narcissism, the abnormal and hypertrophied love of the self. Each wants to have it his way--so the explanation goes--, to "be somebody". Christopher Lasch's "The Culture of Narcissism" was well received in 1979, and recruited its proper share of recognition. But narcissism has gone on to become an epithet rather than a valid explanation of psychopathologic behavior. "The other" always is a narcissist. Looking more closely, I do not believe that those who talk more straight have any less narcissistic investment than those more apt to twist the facts. Nor has convincing evidence been amassed that a Ghandi or Albert Schweitzer is less subject to narcissistic motivation than an ordinary person.
Rather, narcissism, as anxiety, is universal. In each case, its pathology is a quantitative issue. And in both, too little can be as pathological as too much.
More relevant to the phenomenon of every-minute distortion is actually the status of anxiety, the universal center of neurosis, and its accompanying issues of safety and security. The new mental science has shown at its center a universal, unconscious process of testing for the anxiety signal, experimental thought preceding any action. To routine acts, such as walking, talking, crossing a street, such testing is automatic and instantaneous. To demonstrate however, that this automatic internal process has time to assess any new incoming danger, if we are pulled over by a police car, whatever we were saying and however we were saying it changes in a flash to "What did I do wrong, Sir?"
Language accommodations have their adaptive values, even necessity, besides the defensive functions described. Civility, indeed civilization could hardly survive without them, if order rather than mayhem is to prevail.
I will end this essay on conversations with a serendipitous happening at this summer's Congress related to the same subject of direct talk. I picked up a new book on display there written by three analytic friends on a series of monumental and searing exchanges amongst individuals and groups on their shared histories: Israeli and German psychoanalysts relating to each other their experiences about the holocaust. The crucial and indispensible factor here was "in the presence of the other".
The book is: "Fed with tears--Poisoned with Milk." The authors are Shmuel Erlich of Israel--born in Germany in 1937, emigrated to Palestine at age 2--, Mira Erlich-Ginor--born in Israel in 1944--, and Hermann Beland of Germany, born in 1933, a Protestant Theologist before becoming a psychoanalyst. A foreword is by Desmond Tutu. Enough cannot be said about all of them.
Carefully prepared Conferences making these interchanges possible have been held regularly from the mid-80's until now--the first two in Nazareth, Israel, he next in Germany, the latest few in Cyprus, relatively "neutral" but with its own history of virulent enmities. Modeled originally after the Tavistock Group Relations Conferences, these gatherings gradually assumed identities of their own. At the first Conference in Nazareth, a German analyst in the Chair remarked how few had come from Israel--an answer came back, "If you had not killed so many of us, there might have been more".
The goal stated was not to benefit by understanding, but by experiencing directly the affects of the other. Subsequently, the scope of this type of Conference is being applied to the Israeli-Palestine conflict as well, a natural extension of the basic principles involved.
The ultimate outcome is hard to say. But an advance--a startling one-- has been made.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
If you are concerned about receiving "real" health care reform in this country, please take the time to watch a video on our current system. The video was created by Oregon physicians who are advocating for the single-payer option. The video is very informative and helped me to gain a better understanding of various aspect of health care, as we know now it.
https://ww
These Oregon physicians are in the process of organizing a caravan designed to inform the public about the benefits of the single-payer option. At last count they will be stopping in approximately 23 states, on their way to demonstrate in Washington. They need volunteers and our support. Please spread the word.
"forgive them, Father, they know not what they do."
many years ago, at the first "adult children of alcoholics" conference in california, a man named "father juniper" said, "if you don't know what happened to you [as a child] it's like reading a 400 page novel that the first 200 pages have been ripped out of".
why do some people have a chip on their shoulder? why are some controlling, abusive, demand a lot of attention?
because they learned, as children, that's how they had to be in order to survive.
humans, generally, are emotionally dishonest; not because they mean to be but because they lack the introspective ability to understand why they react the way they do. and "reaction" preempts "action".
a person who feels they're "under attack" is not in "listening" mode.
father juniper mentioned a man he spoke to, the child of an alcoholic who beat him, who said, "I FORGAVE MY GODDAM FATHER YEARS AGO!"
it's hard to be human.
WEHAVETOST
1)From the age of toddlerhood, as a species we learn to say "no;" the rest is commentary.
2) As to Rangell's belated insight that dysfunctional communication 24/7 is ubiquitous, I wonder why, over the past 50 years Dr. R. and psychoanalysis have not listened to or acknowledged the fields of couple and family therapy. In these fields conflictual interaction are the beginning of exploration of
what each person feels and how the other hears or doesn't listen based upon his/her past experienence.
----
"Why can't people say 'Oh, I never thought about it that way', or 'That is an interesting idea, let me think about it'...Rath
----
The reason I see has to do with how people fight for what they want. Human behavior can be viewed on a continuum: Submissive > Assertive > Aggressive
From the book "In Sheep's Clothing: Understanding and Dealing with Manipulative People" by Dr. George K. Simon:
----
Fighting openly and fairly for our legitimate needs is often necessary and constructive. When we fight for what we truly need, while respecting the rights and needs of others and taking care not to needlessly injure them, our behavior is best labeled assertive. Assertive behavior is one of the most healthy human behaviors. But when we fight unnecessarily or with little concern about how others are being affected, our behavior is most appropriately labeled aggressive.
----
I can believe that some of these shouters in townhall audiences are indeed feeling anxiety and want to be heard. I would also argue that they are mimicking the behavior that their authoritarian leaders model for them on Fox News. For example:
http://www
Sean Hannity is not feeling anxious, he is merely fighting for his agenda. Not listening serves this purpose. Read the link above which reveals how he coaches his guests on how not to listen.
- Tom
You have said that "People do not speak to each other but past each other, do not absorb and process what others say but pick and choose that which serves their own inner purposes" (para. 4).
All people, few people, many, or just some? Personally, I don't speak at people, but exchange information with them and take in what they have to tell me. This is called "conversation". Some of us people know how to have one. Maybe that's not the conclusion arrived upon at the omniscient Round Table: This can be deduced by making friends with people who aren't direly craving their name's inclusion in the history books; who are willing to share more about their person than banal chatter.
"Despite a yearning for closeness and constancy, which is integral to human striving, alliances are shallow and fleeting, undependable, narcissistically oriented, and, as often as not, run a relentless course toward dissolution of relationships between men and women, husbands and wives, men and men, siblings, even parents and children".
The way you write, it sounds like you assume that every friendship is worthless else for the completion of some secret mission, and every friendship or intimate relationship is doomed to failure by Human nature. Have you never met a couple that was married for decades until their deaths? Have you never stumbled upon a pair who were once strangers and became like brother and sister?
You need to find new friends. Preferably ones uninvolved with the Psychoanalytic Congress.
-Grizzly
I was thinking more along the lines of participation. The protesters want to feel involved, they want to feel significant especially in this time of insecurity. The means they readily have is expressing their entitlement in a confrontational manner. plus it is working in the sense that the product of their toil is fodder for the promotional machine that is the mass media gauntlet.
An advance, perhaps, but not a startling one.
Exposure of a new (and it's NOT new) idea at professional conferences is one thing, and making an appropriate impression on those who are being actively programmed by the Reich-Wing media machine is another.
Let us know when you get to phase two.
-----
stop watching tv. it kills.
Ooooooh sh*t.
...'ere
this is a potpourri of sativa and indica..
say.. do you talk to yourself or at yourself?
just curious..
The fact that the conference's goal is to "experiencing directly the affects of the other" and that "this type of Conference is being applied to the Israeli-Palestine conflict as well" is great news!
"Ever where in the world the Palestinian narrative is known-except in America."-
More about that @
http://www
Dr. Leo Rangell speaks of The Closed Mind convention that actually gives me hope. Biases and belief systems limit our ability to see the big picture. I’ve always said it requires an open mind to understand reality, just not so far open that our physical brains fall out. L.S. Vygotsky in Thought and Language (1962) showed how meanings are formed from experience, these experiences are always subjective. This is why words are just metaphors, and we need to get back to conversation pits to start practice some reflective listening. What I think I hear you saying Dr. Rangell, is that people are not taking the time to communicate effectively. I think it may be a mass psychological effect, dis ease, from the speed of our technology, and our mistaken belief that we need to keep up with it as humans. We need clarity.
Love
Bette
In seminar classes many years ago, we all were obliged, on making a comment, to:
- Repeat/sum up what someone said.
- Ask the person if we were correct in our understanding. Repeat the confirmation process with any clarification.
- Then we could comment, in agreement or not in agreement. Of course we had to present evidence or have a good logic.
I found this to be the way I had my first encounter with a group of French men in Paris. I could not find my bank. I asked a gentlemen (upper class area) where it might be. He repeated. i confirmed. He did not know. He stopped another gentleman and we went through the same process, with me doing the final confirmation. Eventually we did so with 6 people (excluding me). Soon we were being observed by Monsieur le Colonel of the police as we repeatedly marched around the Place Vendome. He inquired. We explained. He repeated. we confirmed. Then, n high French style, he told us to follow him as he marched us, with his hand raised, down an elegant alley and into the bank. Then we all shook hands and congratulated each other. The aristocratic receptionist observed with a raised eyebrow and commented, "Monsieur, that was quite an entourage.
Sorry....a
This conclusion should have been easily attainable simply by reading Huffington Post, and the comments to its articles, for one week.
I think what there is to learn is that, "Our belief systems limit our reality to a sub-set of the solution space that does not contain the answer." As my friend Tom Campbell says in his trilogy My Big TOE, which is his big picture model of reality, and amazing, imo. Dr R. here is opening this up for conversation, right?
Love
Bette
Thanks Bette, that actually helped a lot...
Very important stuff here as it relates to many current crises among peoples and individuals around the globe. Interesting too, to see the informed responses in the comments to what has been stated. I also empathize with OliverTwist's difficulties in "figuring out" what Dr. Rangell did his best to try and convey to HuffPo readers. Bear in mind he's speaking from a clinical, analytic standpoint to a receptive lay audience -- which in itself can pose some of the very issues of listening and communication he speaks of. Of course, one cannot discount the possibility of narcissism in its strictest sense coming from someone who is more likely to be lecturing before a conference of the psychiatric Grand Rounds.
I believe the doctor's intent to be sincere, nonetheless. I have to wonder, though about his meaning where that reference to the "new mental science" is concerned. I'm not for a moment discounting the validity and usefulness of the Psychoanalytic approach. But could he be making an inference about Jungian dynamics, or perhaps meta-Freudian OR Jungian approaches?
This is actually a problem as old as recorded history. In particular, we should pay closer attention to the classical Greek period (c.5th century BC) and the emergence of Socratic philosophy. The subject centers on the age old problem why it is people cannot say what they mean and mean what they say. The fact is we do in fact say what we mean and mean what we say all of the time. The problem is that we are not always astute listeners. Context is everything. Without it there is no meaning other than what we want to make of it, and that is not communication. The philosophy of education is rooted parables, because it was found that ideas are best expressed in scenarios involving relationships. The Emperors New Clothes really has nothing to do with Emperor's or clothes. The Tortoise and the Hare really has nothing to do with Tortoises or Hares. Moby Dick's white whale was not about white whales, etc...
The fact is that anything you say can and will be held against you in the court of public opinion. When the Delphic Oracle Told Croesus that "Croesus will destroy a mighty kingdom" when asked if he should invade Persia he had no idea it would be his own kingdom he would destroy
The universe is speaking to you. Listening is everything.
Today the mass media communication in the United States from the Pat Robertson/
The endless sales pitch has created the exhausted listening soul that is language ignorant in its day and that knows not enough to detect the 1% of psychopaths among us.
You may speak with me but not to me. Perhaps one day the world can deduce the difference again and will return to a basic courtesy.
Lastly, the world of precognitive remote viewing (perhaps even military grade) may also not have escaped the pollutions and distorting effects upon a type of communication that has long existed before the electronic age. The evidence is inconclusive at this point.
America was not formed as a "Christian Nation", but rather as a nation that had no official religion and freedom of choice. This includes freedom to not buy into organized religion when the damage it does is so obvious, as it is today.
Love
Bette
From the 1970s when I sat in on Neil Postman at NYU before he became the first Chair for Media Ecology, the problems with intrusive media product causing interpersonal communications breakdown had already been established. Now some 30 years later we see diminished face to face communication and a huge reduction in personal presence language use. Electronic displacement in language has removed a degree of analytical ability and integrity verification of what is being communicated and yet has produced the higher arts of manipulation. I remember Postman asking, "Why do they play music on the evening news?" decades ago. A broad spectrum of dissonance shock and cringe has emerged as we become more separated by a common language through technology and ideology.
I can hardly accept the notion that the Holocaust was a misunderstanding. It had very definite ideology, accusation and cultivated propaganda to move the masses. The fingerprints of satanic agency are all over German seminary history from the 1850s as this development of Anti-Semitic culture evolved and found the most fertile soil. Communications in the 20s and 30s reached new levels of mass media propaganda and sophistication laid against the background of a competitive nationalism and future declarations of Zionism differing ideologically in England and Germany.
continued-
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
