| I had a really interesting talk with a psychologist not long ago on a topic that has always interested me: the psychology of interpersonal communications. Why do people speak the way they do? Why do they hear differently from what was said? Why -- and this pertains to me -- are some people easily irritated by the way some others communicate?
It was a long talk and I probably have enough material to write a 3000-word article. For this post I just wanted to share three interesting tidbits: transactional analysis, the framework of need, and why does JD get pissed off when he engages in conversation with specific types of communicators. :)
Transactional analysis: this is the study of "what transacts during a conversation." In its simplest form, it argues that in every exchange the participants assume one of three roles, and these roles usually change as the conversation progresses: parent, child or adult. The place we all want to be, or should want to be, is "adult." Here's an example: You arrive late, and the person waiting for you will respond in one of three ways.
Parent: "You're late!" [Judgemental, Authoritative]
Child: "We missed the beginning. You owe me." [Manipulative]
Adult: "What happened? Is everything okay?" [Non-judgemental]
Watch how a conversation unfolds between two people while keeping TA in mind. The jockeying, manipulation and power plays are fascinating and reveal much about how we behave.
The framework of need: this one was really valuable to me. When you say something to someone, they will automatically colour your words with tinges of what they need to hear. The same goes for when they (or you) speak. You colour your words based on the framework of what your needs are. Example: a particular kind of extravert needs constant social affirmation and approval, but at the same time they require above all to be the centre of attention.
Joe: So it's agreed, we'll meet at Bob's Coffee Shop tomorrow.
Paul: Yes, because we really need to discuss the contract, right?
Joe: Right. I'll bring a copy of the contract.
Paul: Bring a copy of the contract. It's important to discuss it.
Paul's the extravert. He had to reiterate two or three times that discussing the contract was important, because he needed to confirm to himself that it was a good idea. Also, he repeatedly sought Joe's approval. He then took ownership of the idea "bring a copy of the contract." To a specific sort of extravert that isn't stealing credit, it was just realigning the spotlight on him or her.
Irritated by certain types of communication habits: I dislike constant reiteration to the point of exasperation. Many communicators need to reiterate because they need a sounding board so they can work out the arguments verbally, or they just seek the social affirmation from being heard. But me, and those like me, view reiteration as a waste of time and energy. I try very hard to be a careful listener, so when you tell me something, I'll hear it and understand it the very first time. Repeating it two, four or nine times isn't just a waste to me, it also implies that I don't listen to you. EPIC IRRITATION!
And that ends the summary of one part of the talk. Fascinating stuff. | 
