To Speak or Not to Speak?

That was the question raised by a lovely, sophisticated physician at a brunch I attended recently.

A medical student she was otherwise quite fond of had said something racist to her, to which she said nothing. Years later, she still wondered if it would have been better had she said something to the student about what the student had said.

I told her that when a neighbor once said something racist to me—using the N-word no less—I responded: “You can’t talk to me like that, and I need you to know that.”

The woman at the brunch looked at me and said, “Oh, I should have said that.”

At that point, I remembered that this was not the first time my neighbor had said something unwelcome, and that on previous occasions my better judgment was not to make an issue of it with her.

After all, it was not like she had asked me to help make a better person of her. But this last occasion exceeded my limits. So, I spoke up.

That’s why when the brunch guest said she should have spoken up because I had, I replied, “Perhaps, but not necessarily. It may be that you were right to hesitate with this student. You seemed to think so at the time. Sometimes it is better to speak; sometimes not.”

That’s the dilemma we all face, which is especially tricky when speaking truth to power, which I have previously written about.

And while there’s no formula that guarantees the “right” choice every time, here are 3 things to consider before you open your mouth.

1. The Impact Test: Will it add value or harm?

Words have power—they can heal, clarify, or inspire. But they can also inflame, confuse, or wound. Research shows that verbal aggression has long-term effects on both relationships and well-being.

Before speaking, ask: Will my words contribute something meaningful here—or will I do harm?

Sometimes silence is not weakness—it’s wisdom. As neuroscientist Ethan Kross notes in his book Chatter, our brains are wired to react quickly, but quick reactions don’t always serve us. A pause can create space to choose impact over impulse.

2. The Timing Test: Is now the right time?

Even important truths can land badly if the moment is wrong. People are more receptive to feedback when they are not in a defensive or emotionally charged state.

In the physician’s case, speaking up in the moment might have triggered defensiveness or hostility, especially given the power dynamics between teacher and student. Waiting, or choosing another venue, may have been wise on her part.

Before speaking, ask: Is this the right time for this message to be heard?

3. The Kindness Test: Can I say it with respect?

It’s not just what we say, but how we say it. Studies show that communication framed with empathy is far more likely to create positive change.

The difference between “That’s unacceptable” and “You may not realize this, but what you said is hurtful” is profound. One closes doors; the other opens possibilities for growth.

I do recall that the tone of my objection to the racist comment was not all that mean, more matter of fact, even if the words I used were not all that sweet. They did shut down the problem, as it never happened again. On the other hand, if relationship building had been important, which it was not, a sweeter delivery might have done a better job.

Before speaking, ask: Can I phrase this in a way that honors my integrity without demeaning the other person?

Final Thought

Speaking and silence are both powerful. Choosing which one to use requires consideration of impact, timing, and kindness. Or as a rule of thumb—True, Kind, Necessary, Beneficial—as the ancient Eastern Philosophers would say.

The physician at brunch wasn’t wrong to stay quiet. I wasn’t wrong to speak up. Both choices were right—for their contexts.

The art lies in knowing that there’s no one-size-fits-all rule. The next time you’re torn between silence and speech, pause, and run through these three tests. You may find that the best answer lies not in always speaking or never speaking—but in discerning when to do which.

For help with this or something else, would love to hear from you at weissmadelaine@gmail.com

Photo by Pexels

Why it’s Not Always Rude—Especially if Someone’s Wired for Depth.

The other day, I interrupted someone mid-sentence. She was talking—I can’t remember what it was about—when we walked right past a jazz club in our neighborhood that I’d noticed many times but never visited. Without thinking, I blurted, “Have you ever been there?”

It wasn’t meant to be rude, although her stiffening clearly indicated she was not happy to have been cut off that way. Later, I reflected on it and don’t believe that I was trying to hijack the conversation—but rather was trying to rescue it—and possibly guide it somewhere more alive.

Fyi, there are studies showing how unsatisfactory many participants find conversation to be. And, it turns out, a lot of people interrupt—not to be rude, but to reach for something more meaningful. So while it is often labeled a conversational no-no, context and intent matter. Not all interruptions are created equal.

Here are three surprising reasons people interrupt—and a few ways to do it better, with more awareness and grace.

1. They’re Reaching for Depth, Not Attention

Sometimes an interruption comes from two directions at once.

• Unconscious: a restless reflex to cut things short. Introverts especially can get antsy on the surface of things — small talk can feel like noise they need to escape.
• Conscious: a deliberate pull toward something richer. Introverts are wired for depth, so when they sense the chance for a more meaningful exchange, they may jump in to suggest a shift. That jazz club, for example, wasn’t just a landmark. It was a doorway into something potentially richer to share than, let’s say, a story about a friend’s friend from five years ago.

Seen this way, it isn’t about grabbing attention but about guiding the moment toward depth.

A more intentional approach:
→ “Could we pause here for a sec? There’s something I’d love to ask you about where we are when you’re finished.”
This can make the redirection feel like an invitation instead of an intrusion.

2. They’re Afraid of Losing the Thought

For deep thinkers or anyone who processes a lot internally — ideas often flash in and out quickly. Breaking in can be less about impatience and more about urgency: the need to hold on to something important before it vanishes.

A helpful alternative:
→ Jot the thought down or mentally bookmark it. Then return later with:
“Can I circle back to something you said earlier? It really stuck with me.”
This signals respect, while still honoring the spark.

3. They’re Seeking Emotional Connection

Not every interruption is about ideas. Sometimes it’s about the emotional current. The conversation may have plenty of substance but still feel flat — like two people talking at each other instead of with each other.

In that case, it isn’t only about experiential depth (#1). It’s about making the moment warmer, more human. It’s a way of saying: “I want us to feel connected while we talk.”

A graceful shift:
→ “That’s interesting — what does it mean for you?”
This reorients the exchange toward presence and personal connection, rather than just continuing the flow of information.

So It’s Not Always Rude—It’s Often Real

Sure, some interruptions are careless or self-centered. But many come from a very human place—a desire to contribute, to connect, to make the moment matter.

Especially for those who think deeply and feel intensely, the urge to influence the direction of the conversation may come, not from the ego, but from the heart.

It helps to distinguish, then, between interruption as ego and interruption as engagement. When the goal is meaningful connection with ideas and people, the key isn’t silence—it’s sensitivity. 

People don’t necessarily need to stop entirely. They may just need to interrupt better.

So next time someone interrupts—or next time you do—it might be worth asking:
Was that a disruption?
Or an invitation?

For help with this or something else, contact me at weissmadelaine@gmail.com   

I’m working on it too. 😊

Love,

Madelaine

What do you do when the people you love most seem blind to what matters most to you?

I have written before on the intensifying differences in our lives today. And I write again because I find one of the hardest emotional challenges in life—when we find ourselves on one side of a chasm, staring across at people you once felt completely connected to, and realizing they simply don’t see what you see.

They’re not bad people. In fact, they may be some of the most decent, caring people you know. But when it comes to certain issues—issues you see as urgent or even existential—it’s as if they’re living in another reality. The pain of that disconnection can feel like a quiet heartbreak, over and over again.

This dissonance isn’t new. In fact, psychologists call it selective perception—the brain’s tendency to filter out information that doesn’t match pre-existing beliefs. Ray Nickerson’s research on confirmation bias explains how even reasonable people can completely miss facts that don’t fit their worldview.

Here are five powerful truths that can help you find steadiness in the swirl of emotional complexity when those you love just don’t see the world the way you do.

1. It’s Not Just a Difference of Opinion—It’s a Difference of Reality

Disagreements about where to eat dinner or how to spend a weekend are one thing. But when your loved ones dismiss or minimize something you believe threatens the future, it stops feeling like a simple disagreement and starts to feel like you’re on separate planets.

Cognitive scientist George Lakoff explains that people don’t interpret facts neutrally—we use deeply ingrained metaphors and moral frames. That’s why two people can hear the same story and draw opposite conclusions. If someone sees your concern through a completely different frame, they may literally not register the urgency you feel.

2. The More You Care, the More It Hurts

If we didn’t care about them, it wouldn’t matter what they thought. But love sharpens the pain. Watching someone we care for deeply speak or act in a way that seems dangerously naïve, misinformed, or even hostile to what we value can feel like a form of grief.

Psychologist Pauline Boss coined the term ambiguous loss—the kind of grief we feel when someone is physically present but emotionally or psychologically absent in some crucial way. It captures that unique ache of seeing someone you love shift into a worldview you can no longer share.

3. You May Be Right—and Still Be Alone in It

We might see patterns others are missing. We might have done more research. We might feel more connected to history’s warnings. But being right doesn’t always bring connection. In fact, it can isolate.

This echoes what some call the Cassandra complex—the torment of seeing what’s coming but being dismissed. Named after the Greek myth where Cassandra was cursed to see the future but never be believed, it reflects a painful truth: having insight doesn’t always create influence. Sometimes, it just makes us feel lonelier.

4. You Don’t Have to Convince to Stay Connected

Here’s the hard but hopeful truth: We can love people without agreeing with them. We can hold our own perspective firmly and still choose not to argue every point. We can let go of the fantasy that if we just explained it better, they’d finally get it.

In conflict resolution, this is called strategic disengagement. It’s not surrender—it’s a conscious decision to protect the relationship by not needing to win. Holding boundaries with grace is a strength, not a failure.

5. You Can Grieve the Divide Without Losing Yourself

When we realize a loved one doesn’t—and maybe won’t—see the world the way we do, there’s a subtle identity crisis that can follow. Who are we without that shared vision? Can we still belong? Are we safe?

Let yourself grieve that loss. But don’t let it pull you out of your own integrity.

We are still allowed to care deeply, speak clearly, and hold compassion for those who can’t or won’t join us in seeing what we see. Their denial does not invalidate our insight. Their fear does not diminish our clarity.

You are not alone, even if it sometimes feels that way. To discuss this or something else, Contact Me at madelaineweiss.com

Love,

Madelaine

Photo by Unsplash

What’s Wrong with Meetings?

I actually love virtual meetings just as much as in-person meetings. Okay, maybe I love them more just because of how incredibly convenient they are.

Other people say they are tired of virtual. And, that could be because virtual meetings really do make our brains tired. That’s what researchers are finding. 

Before we get to that let’s talk a bit about the benefits. From an earlier post: 

…virtual meetings make it possible for different types of personalities to contribute in ways that suit them.

From a Harvard Business Review article: Hybrid or virtual meetings are inherently more inclusive than in-person ones, as they allow participation from all kinds of personalities — those who would raise their hand and speak and those who would prefer to chat in their comments.

And here are some fun facts from that same post:

• 71% of meetings are considered unproductive, costing $37 billion per year to American business.
• 55 million meetings per week in the U.S., 11 million per week, 1 billion per year
• 65% of employees agree meetings prevent work completion
• 41% multitask during meeting
• 91% daydream during meeting
• 55% think the meeting could have been an email

Studies have found that less than 2% of conversations end at a point when both people want them to, and that only about 10% of the time did both people wish the conversation had lasted longer.

Advice from Zippia:

The ideal meeting length is about 15 minutes. Studies show that in meetings that are no longer than 15 minutes, 91% of attendees are paying attention. This number steadily declines until it reaches only 64% in meetings over 45 minutes….You improve work meetings by determining the reason for the meeting beforehand, setting and distributing an agenda before the meeting, and limiting the meeting attendees to 10, maximum. As Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos says, “if you need more than two pizzas to feed everybody, there are too many people.”

Hope some of that helps with in-person getting together, in general. Now, what’s different about the virtual kind? 

What’s Different About Virtual Meetings?

Here is what the 2 studies found. One found that video conferencing was significantly more exhausting than the in-person kind, characterized by feeling tired and alienated. 

In addition to the subjective reporting of previous studies, these researchers tested the neurophysiology (EEG and ECG) of participants who either attended a 50-minute lecture in-person or by video conferencing, concluding that: 

A better understanding of videoconference fatigue is important, as this phenomenon has a far-reaching impact on the well-being of individuals, interpersonal relationships and organizational communication. 

The other study, reported by Science Daily at the same time, explored the drowsiness that occurred during 400 meetings of 44 knowledge workers. These researchers also used physiological methods, shadowed participants to link responses to events, and administered questionnaires to assess how engaged and enthusiastic participants were about their work.

What they found was that the better the participants felt about their work, the better they could stay actively engaged in a virtual meeting without fatigue. Less engaged and enthusiastic participants found virtual very tiring, and more tiring than the in-person kind. 

Here are some possible reasons.  Contrary to the commonly held idea that Zoom causes overload, if disengaged workers turn their cameras off, let’s say, the lack of cognitive and social cues can leave them underloaded (understimulated) instead. As in, bored. 

So they start multitasking, and it is straining to focus cognitively on more than one thing at once that exhausts the brain. The brain doesn’t do two things at once very well.  

For example, an MIT Neuroscientist explains what happens if we try to take a phone call in the middle of a writing project:

The brain has to stop focusing on writing, switch to listening, and then back to writing. But in returning to the first task, the brain has to use more energy to focus and get back into the flow. According to Professor Miller, the small interruption wastes time and increases the chances of making mistakes. 

And yet, we are wired to try anyway because, back in the day when the modern human brain was being formed, it was good to be able to pay attention to a few important matters at the same time. Food over here, danger over there—stop whatever you are doing, reproductive opportunity right now. 

Today, however, there are more than a few things calling on our attention, and the brain is just not designed to handle it all.  

So, what’s the takeaway? What can we do to improve virtual and in-person meetings, lectures, and any other occasions where we have to pay attention when we feel like doing anything but?

What is the Takeaway?

The authors of the second study say to walk. Walking is automatic so the brain doesn’t need to strain to make it happen. And walking can energize and assist rather than impede concentration. 

High-powered leaders must know this. “Walk with me,” they say. And it always seems so cool. But we can’t always do that. We can’t always invite people to walk around with us in the middle of a meeting, or a talk, or even to walk around going nowhere or somewhere ourselves. 

No worries, there is something else we can do anywhere, any time. And that is to laser-focus our attention on the one thing we are there to do. You may think that disciplining the mind that way will take more energy and make you more tired than if you let your mind wander around all over the place. But I bet you would be wrong 😉 

Practice, practice, practice…let us know what happens, and for help with this or something else, Contact Me at wessmadelaine@gmail.com

Happy Thanksgiving!

Madelaine

Photo by Freepik

Who Has Negative Thoughts?

I am going to guess that everybody has negative thoughts, at some point or another. I’m guessing because studies are fuzzy on the details. There is a widely quoted study, supposedly from the National Science Foundation, suggesting that we humans have 12,000 to 60,000 thoughts per day, with 80% of these negative, and 95 % the same thoughts as we had the day before.

Another author claims there is no such study and that even Deepak Chopra took these statistics down from his site. Turns out I could not find the National Science Foundation either, but did find a Cleveland Clinic website putting it at 70,000 thoughts per day, and a relatively recent consensus across the internet at ~6,000 thoughts per day.

So let’s just say we have a lot of thoughts per day, and that just about everyone is doing it, e.g., 93.6% of participants in one study reported experiencing negative (“intrusive”) thoughts—some more than others for sure.

Not all unwanted thoughts are negative. Even something as neutral or even pleasant as what to put on your grocery list, yum, can be unwanted/intrusive if we are trying to take a timed exam or to focus on a task that we have to get done.

The negative thoughts are not just a distraction because they can affect our moods and our lives, and are thereby a central feature in mental health conditions, such as obsessive-compulsive, anxiety, post-traumatic stress, and eating disorders.

But a lot of people are troubled by negative thinking even without a full-blown disorder. Why is that? Why is negative thinking so common? Why do have them at all?

Why Do We Have Negative Thoughts?

We have them because back in the day when the modern human brain was forming negativity helped us to survive and to thrive. If something pleasant came down the pike and we missed it, like a food opportunity, oh well there will be another. But if it was a predator and we missed it then we would be lunch. 

So, our ancestors who were best at looking out for danger (negative thinking) were more likely to live to fight and procreate another day, and here we are all wired up with radar for negative people, places, and things to occur, even if they don’t.

That’s the evolutionary psychology point of view in a nutshell on what is called the “negativity bias,” well-known and well-used even by the 2023 World Economic Forum (WEF): 

There is currently a “permacrisis” of disruption on every conceivable front, fueled by volcanic eruptions that have simmered beneath the surface for years. From human-induced trauma such as war, inflation and recession; to cybercrime and real-world malfeasance, they all coalesce into a cacophony of negativity…. Negativity bias is universal. 

One recommendation from the WEF is that we try to replace ‘prediction’ about how terrible things are and are going to be with ‘conviction’ that things can and will be better. Pointing out that some of the greatest companies were built during a recession, they add:

…this idea of conviction, of knowing what we are here to do, where we find our zest for life and how we get to apply that. As leaders, it’s our job to help marry individual purpose with institutional purpose – what you’re good at versus what the world needs – so people can find the right balance for themselves. This is what the ancient tradition of ikigai is really all about.

Change your mindset; change your life. Easier said than done because often enough there is a negative voice inside the head that is hard to get out. From an earlier post on The Inner Critic: 

How The Inner Critic is Good

The Inner Critic (we’ll call it TIC) is the voice inside of your head that tells you, no matter how well you did, it was not good enough. In that way it motivates you always to do better. People say it spurred them on and got them where they are today.

On the other hand, it also tells you what you can’t do. It sees danger, failure, potential for humiliation…everywhere. So, it also protects you from making a complete fool, or failure, out of yourself.

Okay, so far so good. It spurs you on and keeps you out of harm’s way. Why would we want to give that up—even if we could, which we can’t because the negativity bias, which has helped us to survive and to thrive, is hardwired in.

How The Inner Critic is Bad

Yeah but, left to its own devices, it can become so loud in your life that you can begin to trust it more than you trust yourself. Or, worse, you get to where you don’t even know the difference between it and yourself. This is how and when the suffering really sets in. And it is bad.

The voice may have started up outside of you. Maybe it was an overbearing parent who meant well but overshot. Too much of a good thing, we could say. Or maybe a teacher.

But now it is in you, and yours to have and to hold forever more. If it is in charge of you, instead of the other way around, it can fill you with shame—the very thing it meant to prevent. And shame-filled people tend not to grow, not the way the inner voice thinks it wants you to anyway. In the words of Jena Pincott in Psychology Today,“All too often it sends us back to a zone where we find ourselves safe, but also stuck.” Therefore what?

What To Do with Negative Thoughts?

1. Professional Help: Negative thoughts are normal and natural, to an extent. But if they are messing with your sleep and day-to-day functioning in an ongoing way then by all means get support from a mental health professional to help you get the troublesome thoughts dialed down. 

2. Acceptance: For a while now many if not most helping professionals were advising that “what we resist persists.” Accordingly, it is better to let the thoughts come, and then let them pass like clouds in the sky. And they will pass if we don’t pick them up like a dog with a bone, hanging onto the negative thoughts for a day, a week, a month, a year, sometimes for all the rest of our lives. Note: I always like to ask “Is there something to be done here” before I let the thoughts go. After all, there might be something useful in the thought that we don’t just want to dismiss. Get what you need, then let it go. 

3. Suppression: There is a new study in contrast to the acceptance approach. This study found that participants who learned how to outright block the negative thoughts and images showed significant lowering of negative and an increase in positive mental health indices scores. Here is a link for the report on the study with details on how the thoughts and images were blocked.

4. Breathe: Excessive negativity can be a fight, flight, freeze stress response, and there is evidence that a calm and relaxed mind races less. I once had a client with a pretty good life, despite a racing mind filled with worry that was driving him nuts. The first time he did what I call Power Breathe, a 30-second mindset reset, all he could say was “Wow,” and that said it all. Here is the link for a short and simple instruction for the Power Breathe exercise on my website.

Practice, practice, practice…and see what happens. For help with this or something else, Contact Me at weissmadelaine@gmail.com

Warmly,

Madelaine

Photo by Freepik

What are The Stats on Political Polarization?

In Social Science and Medicine, Northeastern University researchers report:

• Participants reporting increase in polarization had 52-57% higher odds of developing depressive disorders and anxiety disorders.
• Participants reporting high (vs. low) levels of perceived state-level mass (general public) polarization had 49% higher odds of depressive disorders.
• Participants who perceived high levels of state-level elite (party organizers and officials) polarization reported 71% higher odds of depressive disorders and 49% higher odds of sleep disorders.

So, wow, how come hardly anyone is talking about this link?

We are talking about a mental health crisis. For some stats on this from the World Health Organization:

• Mental health conditions are increasing worldwide.
• 13% rise in mental health conditions and substance use disorders in last decade (to 2017).
• Around 20% of the world’s children and adolescents have a mental health condition, with suicide the second leading cause of death among 15-29-year-olds.
• Two of the most common mental health conditions, depression and anxiety, cost the global economy US$ 1 trillion each year.

And, separately, we are also talking about the rise in political polarization. From NBC News, (for just a few markers, check out the article for more)

• Before Harry Truman ran for a full term in 1948, two-thirds of Democrats (68%) and even half of Republicans (50%) approved of his job performance. 
• By the time of Richard Nixon in the White House, the gap between his party’s approval of him and the opposition party grew to 47 points. 
• By Barack Obama’s time, it expanded to 72 points. 
• And for Donald Trump, it was 79 points, shrinking only by the slightest of margins to 77 points for Joe Biden.

So, we know that mental health challenges are rising. And we know that political polarization is rising. Maybe you will agree that it is time now to la good look at the link between the two.

How Does the Political Polarization-Mental Health Link Work?

Even pre-pandemic, in 2019, 19.86% of adult Americans reported a mental health challenge.

This health.com article gave 4 reasons why things appear to be going from bad to worse. They were:

1. Social Media
2. Covid-19
3. Isolation and Loneliness
4. Lack of Access to Care

Notice not a word about political polarization. To take it personally for a moment, when a news commentator asked, with a straight face, if “Strawberry” was actually a thing on a booking document, saying that he was not familiar with that option appearing on booking documents for hair color — I laughed.

I am sorry I laughed because this whole thing is not funny. And when I asked myself why I was laughing if it is not funny, I thought maybe it was nervous laughter.

Maybe a lot of us are nervous without even being aware, so instead we polarize. Instead, if ever there was a season of “I am right and good, and you are wrong and bad,” this is it.

You are wrong and bad and, when I am really nervous, you are ridiculously funny, as my psychological defense.

Business people describe the current state of our world as relentlessly VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex, ambiguous). Nerve wracking, that is.

The more stressed we are the more we drill down into our differences and huddle together with those who are trying to make sense of the world in the same way that we are ourselves. Singing to the choir as it is otherwise known. Political polarization.

Humans have a drive for sense-making that can make us hostile to alternative points of view that make our own seem to make less sense than we prefer to think. From an earlier post on this topic:

It’s our story. Our central organizing principle. Everybody has one. Everybody needs one to function at all. Just as the brain regulates body temperature, it regulates and simplifies sensory inputs so our brains don’t explode.  

Alright, maybe that’s a bit much, but you all know what too much information feels like. It almost hurts, makes you want to take a nap, or a drink, or eat a bag of cookies, or something.

It’s too much. Our little brains can’t work with all that, but we need something to work with so, by nature and by nurture, our brains pick and choose us a manageable view of the world and our place in it.

The best story I know to illustrate the point is The Elephant and The Blind Men. Six blind men are told that there is an elephant in the village. They all go to the elephant to ‘see’ with their hands what an elephant is. Each touches a different part of the elephant. Here’s what they said:

“Hey, the elephant is a pillar,” said the first man who touched his leg.

“Oh, no! it is like a rope,” said the second man who touched the tail.

“Oh, no! it is like a thick branch of a tree,” said the third man who touched the trunk of the elephant.

“It is like a big hand fan” said the fourth man who touched the ear of the elephant.

“It is like a huge wall,” said the fifth man who touched the belly of the elephant.

“It is like a solid pipe,” Said the sixth man who touched the tusk of the elephant.

And then they argued, each convinced that he was right. Because he was – but only partly. And herein lies the rub that makes us so unwelcoming, if not downright hostile, to that which we cannot ourselves ‘see’. Six different stories, all of them true and only partly true, as many different stories as there are people in the world, one of which is yours.

And just as an actor/actress has a script and role to play, so do we. That is, our story, which gives meaning and coherence to our lives, also directs our action, unless we actively, mindfully, intervene.

Exactly what we need to do. Intervene. Not so much with the other person, as with ourselves.

One of the 4 reasons given above for worsening mental health was “Isolation and Loneliness.” And yet, in an effort to secure ourselves psychologically, we are behaving in ways that are damaging us all socially, emotionally, and physically too.

My client, an elite partisan who suffered significant gastrointestinal issues, was convinced that her encounters with others opposed to her own view of the world were a major cause of her ill-health.

And many people, in general, are now operating in flight, flight, freeze mode—all stress responses that can both make us sick and alienate the very support we need to feel safer in the world. 

So, what can we do? 

What We Can Do

Actually, there are some things we can do. This is not always the case. But in this case, yes indeed there are some things we can do.

Last week we talked about mastering our mouths—how we can pause before we speak to make sure our thoughts pass the test of true, kind, necessary, and beneficial before any words come out of our mouths.

Another useful exercise is something I call The Judgment Room, on how judgy we humans are so we can begin to get a grip on our judginess for a better, safer world in which to live with each other.

Here is The Judgment Room link: https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:9058129f-985d-3b40-9ce3-6f6f3a6985fe

Practice, practice, practice…see what happens, and let us know.

Warmly,

Madelaine

Why We Talk?

Recently I lost a friend. Actually, he was he was a friend of a friend’s son, and I had not even met him, not even by zoom. Email only.

But I cherished Josh (not his real name) because he was of a different political persuasion than almost everyone I know. Plus, he seemed to enjoy helping me to see things about our world and the people in it that he could tell I did not see myself.

Josh would send me articles to help me to understand what I had no other way to understand, unless I watched that other station, which I did not want to do.  

What if someone saw me? People do ask me what news station I watch. People ask people what station they watch routinely as shorthand for “Are you in my tribe or not?”

I have this going on with friends on the far right and left. One beloved woman I have known for years puts up with my incessant inquiries, challenges, and assertions, I am hoping not just because we have known each other for years but because maybe she learns a little something from me too.

Or is it something to do with the world feeling a bit safer when we are connected to that which might scare the bejeebies out of us.

I think that’s what it is for me. I’m not exactly trying to persuade anyone not to see what they see. I just feel safer if they can add into the mix more of what there is to see than meets their own eyes. 

Talking is complicated. And, considering the scientific finding that less than 2% of conversations end when we want them to, I figure I am not the only one who, despite my good intentions, may simply talk too much.

So, let’s look at some excerpts from an earlier post on how and why we humans started to talk at all.

History of Talk

In Evolution and Human Behavior, John Cartwright tells us that the first talker could have been Homo habilis, 2 million years ago or Homo erectus, 1 million years ago. You may also click here for no less than 200 references on the origins of language. But here is what matters for our purposes.

To be sure, talking is a social plus, and one that has helped us to survive and to thrive all along, likely for millions of years. How else would we suppose that our ancestors could negotiate who gets to eat how much and what cut of the meat from the hunt? How else would they have been able to make deals, detect cheaters, alert each other to danger, and the like.

Well why couldn’t they just do it with the wave of a hand or a point of the finger, “Food over here…ferocious beast over there”?

Because it didn’t work in the dark for one thing and, even if it was light out, then we had to be looking at each other all the time, just in case someone decided to ‘say’ something, instead of either resting our eyes or using them to scan outward for food, danger, or sex opportunities….

So by putting the tongue to work, hands could do all kinds of great things, like carrying babies, using tools….

But not all speech is as overtly purposeful as that. Some of it is just for… you know…bonding. Not to minimize bonding, we’d be nowhere as a species without bonding, but here’s where the drivel comes in.

“Talking is a social lubricant, not necessarily done to convey information, but to establish familiarity…. these vocalizations are equivalent to the chitchat that we do. People think that conversations are like exchanging mini-lectures full of information. But most of the time we have conversations and forget them when we’re done because they’re performing a purely social function.”

That’s a relief in a way, isn’t it? Trouble is that the chitchat can be mindless and when we are talking just to talk it doesn’t always come out right.

In fact, studies have shown American civility to be on the decline. As only one example, 25% of Americans reported using the f-word every day, up 10 points over the last 10 years.

And something tells me our uncivilized polarizing discourse is only going to get worse. So what can we do? Well, we can learn how to master our mouths.

Mastering Your Mouth

Mastering Your Mouth is a chapter title in my book, Getting to G.R.E.A.T.

In short for here and now, the most useful guidance I have ever heard for getting a grip on too much talking is: True, Kind, Necessary and Beneficial. And, ideally, our speech would meet the test of all 4.

For example, talk that is true, might not be kind, nor necessary and beneficial at all. Sometimes we talk just to assert our existence. Again from the earlier post:

For some people, it goes something like this: I Talk Therefore I am. Why not just: I Breathe Therefore I Am. If all that is needed is reassurance that one exists, breathing should be enough.

Breathing is true, kind, beneficial, and necessary. But breathing doesn’t tell us that we are really amazing and that the whole rest of the world knows it. Anyone can breathe.

But impressing the world, just by making these amazing words come out of the mouth, well now we’re talking. Only no one is listening, more than likely not even the talker, when the talking has taken on a life of its own with no redeeming social value to it.

So, especially in these highly charged times, threatening to become even more so, let’s just think before we talk. Is it true, kind, necessary, beneficial? Is it going to help us to help each other or pull us more and more apart.

And if there really is no useful purpose to what the tongue is about to do—as if the tongue is in charge of us instead of the other way around—let’s just breathe instead so at least we do no harm.

Practice, Practice, Practice…see what happens, and for help with this or something else, Contact Me at Madelaine Weiss.

Warmly,

Madelaine

Photo by Freepik

What About Information? 

Information is everywhere: ∼6 × 10⁸⁰ bits of information in the observable universe. That would be 6 times 71 million zeroes bits, if you can fathom that.

Out of this, the senses pluck and send 11,000,000 bits per second to the brain. And, guess how many bits are conscious. Fifty. That’s right, we are consciously aware of only fifty bits out of all that.

Obviously, we humans can’t handle too much. And yet, we heap more and more information on ourselves and each other every day, too much of it drivel.

Why, we may ask? Is it just because we can? Well, yes of course, technological advancements, digitalization and online content, and the open access to user-generated content and social media have all contributed to the explosion of information available and accessible to us all of the time.

But it is not only because we can. It is also because we feel we have to, related to a list of fears starting with FO, for Fear of, including but not limited to: 

FOMO: Fear of Missing Out

FOBO: Fear of Better Options 

Even… 

FOGO, or a Fear of Going Out, let’s say pandemic or crime related, that now has us on our screens ad nauseam, down the rabbit hole we go.

The above FOs are only a few of the many fears and anxieties feeding our information craze. Not the least of these would have to be Ernest Becker’s fear of the inevitable demise we as human beings all face. 

On a more positive note, isn’t it also the case that our information-rich society fuels learning, innovation, and global connectivity. These can be mighty good things for us, as long as we remain in charge of them instead of them in charge of us, as the AI gurus are now warning.

This brings us to the pros and cons of information—and communication—or the “process by which information is exchanged between individuals.”

Pros of Communication

1. Information Exchange: Communication allows for the exchange of ideas, knowledge, and information between individuals or groups, facilitating learning, growth, and understanding.

2. Building Relationships: Effective communication forms the foundation for healthy and meaningful relationships, fostering trust, empathy, and connection with others. 

3. Collaboration and Teamwork: Communication is essential for successful collaboration and teamwork. It enables individuals to share their perspectives, coordinate efforts, and work towards common goals. 

4. Conflict Resolution: Open and effective communication plays a vital role in resolving conflicts and misunderstandings. It allows for the expression of concerns, active listening, and finding mutually agreeable solutions. 

5. Personal and Professional Development: Engaging in communication activities, such as public speaking, presentations, or networking, helps individuals develop their interpersonal, leadership, and negotiation skills, contributing to personal and professional growth.

And, just so you know, we have been doing this thing called ‘talking’ for hundreds of thousands if not millions of years. From my book, Getting to G.R.E.A.T.:

How else could our ancestors negotiate who got to eat how much and which cut of the

meat from the hunt? How else would they have been able to make deals, detect cheaters, alert each other to danger, and the like?

Why couldn’t they just do it with the wave of a hand or a point of the finger—“Berries over here, ferocious beast over there”? Because finger-pointing wouldn’t work in the dark, for one thing, and even if it was light out, they’d have to be looking at each other all the time, just in case someone decided to “say” something with their finger—instead of either resting their eyes or using them to scan outward for food, danger, sex opportunities, and the like.

Something else was needed, so evolution came up with the idea of using the human tongue for communication…. By putting the tongue to work, hands could do all kinds of useful things, like carrying babies, tools, and other objects, so our early ancestors could move more easily to safer environments, where more food and water could be found (pp.73-74).

Speaks for itself, so to speak. Now for some of the Cons. 

Cons of Communication

1. Misunderstandings and Misinterpretations: Communication can be prone to misunderstandings and misinterpretations due to factors such as differences in language, cultural backgrounds, or non-verbal cues, leading to confusion or conflict.

2. Information Overload: With the vast amount of information available, communication channels can become overwhelming, resulting in information overload and difficulty in filtering out relevant and accurate information.

3. Barriers to Effective Communication: Various barriers, such as language barriers, noise, distractions, or poor listening skills, can hinder effective communication, leading to misunderstandings, ineffective collaborations, and strained relationships.

4. Emotional Impact: Communication can evoke strong emotions and trigger conflicts, especially in sensitive or challenging discussions. Emotional responses, such as anger, frustration, or hurt feelings, can hinder constructive communication. 

5. Communication Breakdowns: Ineffective communication can result in communication breakdowns, where messages are not properly conveyed or received, leading to misunderstandings, decreased productivity, and damaged relationships.

Here is another, I believe deserving of more attention than it gets.

Information Burdening 

The Harvard Business Review reported on a Gartner study of 1000 employees and managers. And what they found was the following:

Information volume, as it turns out, is only a partial driver of information overload. Rather, the real culprit is the information itself — and specifically the degree to which the accessing and interpreting of the information imposes extra “work” on its recipient. This is what we call information burden.

Information burden is defined as a set of information that is:

• Duplicative: 57% of employees and managers say they often receive multiple communications about the same or similar topics at the same time.
• Irrelevant: 47% say that the company communications they receive are unrelated to their day-to-day responsibilities.
• Effort Intensive: 38% say they have to do extra work to keep up with the amount of information they receive at their organization.
• Inconsistent: 33% say that the company communications they receive are often inconsistent or internally conflicting.

In other words, many employees and managers are suffering from and complaining about company communications; including such issues as duplication, irrelevance, the need for extra effort to manage the information and inconsistencies.

At work and at home, what if we all try a little harder not to Information burden each other. And, here it is from the ancients, the simple idea that communications should pass the test of ‘true, kind, necessary, and beneficial’ if they are to exist at all.

Practice, Practice, Practice…and see what happens. And for help with this or something else, Contact Me at weissmadelaine@gmail.com

Warmly,

Madelaine

Photo by FreePik

Speaking Truth to Power

“Speaking truth to power is to express our opinions frankly and openly to people who have some form of power over us,” this definition from thought leader, David Gurteen.

The concept of Speaking Truth to Power goes as least as far back as the Ancient Greeks, and became well used by the Quakers in the 1950’s.

What we know today about Speaking Truth to Power is that it is damned hard. Am I right? Okay, so let’s take a look at what makes it so hard, and then, as always, what might make it better.

What Makes it Hard?

Consider these excerpts below from an article on Speaking Truth to Power by researchers Megan Reitz and John Higgins:

In organisations we are constantly navigating and constructing perceptions of power difference which in turn affect whether we expect to be heard or ignored and whether we seek others’ opinions or not.

We are social beings, wanting to belong. To speak up (and to stay silent) is a political act that has consequences for our relationships—not to mention very real consequences for our careers and financial security.

Job title, gender, ethnicity, age, appearance, accent and a plethora of others. In turn, these labels each convey differing levels of status and authority, depending on how they are socially constructed in a specific context. The same label may convey very different expectations in different organisations, countries or circumstances.

What these researchers found was that the #1 reason that people remain silent is that they are afraid of being perceived negatively. But that’s not all. A close second was that people are reluctant to speak up out of respect and deference to power and authority as well.

Whether we like it or not, those who have status and authority have the power to determine who speaks and who does not, who belongs and who does not, who is in and who is out.

Much as we want to stand out as individuals, to be valued for our uniqueness, we all want to belong, especially to belong where the power resides.

In Paradoxes of Group Life, the authors talk about how we are wired to both want to fit in and stand out. Old saying is that if two people are exactly alike, one of them is unnecessary. And, who wants to be unnecessary. Hence, the need to stand out.

And yet, we may feel more included when we think, sound, look, and act like others (e.g., political party affiliation). From an earlier post of mine:

Narcissistic Process and Corporate Decay [details] a tendency in employees to focus more on satisfying the boss’ ego than on producing their finest quality work. We know these as “Yes” men and women, who yes it up pretty much for the reasons The Stupidity Paradox authors say – for the comfort, safety, and harmony of a smooth, humming organizational machine. Until it crashes because too many corporate leaders are hanging onto policies of the past no matter how bad they are, and too many employees and leaders alike prefer to live in some kind of Lala land, rather than to face the hard facts, choices, and conflicts necessary to survive and to thrive.

So, when we lose ourselves completely to this process, we not only deprive and deplete the organizations and communities who need the truth to survive and to thrive, but we run the risk of completely losing who we are as well. And you will know that this is happening by how awful it feels.

Interestingly, and unfortunately, there are predictions that conformity attitudes will rise post pandemic, based on prior research that collectivist attitudes rise in societies with higher prevalence of disease. And we do seem to be exhibiting ever increasing, even bizarre I think, huddling within tribes.

So, what can we do to help us speak truth to the powerfully opinionated, and in other circumstances with which we may have trouble receiving and/or speaking truth to power.

What Makes it Better?

Let’s start with a breakdown of people in power and the people struggling to speak truth to them—recognizing that a single individual can be one or both at any given time.

For the People in Power:

Reitz and Higgins offer up some wonderful advice for leaders, listed here below:

– Assume you are scarier than you think.

– Question your ‘little list’ of whose opinion counts.

– Send ‘speak up’ rather than ‘shut up’ signals and responses.

For the People Struggling to Speak Truth to Power:

Let’s take this from Penny Herscher who, by her bio, appears to be a pretty accomplished force in her own right, from her article in Inc. Paraphrasing here:

– Executives time is well guarded. Be persistent and bring a suggestion or solution when you do get to speak up about a problem.

– Remember that it is not only your right but your responsibility to use your voice and share your perspective.

– If the tone of your delivery is constructive and you are doing a good job, your message should be more appreciated than punished. If it is the latter, go find a better leader to work for.

– We may wish or assume that leaders know everything already. That’s a myth. But if they do know what you just told them, then you confirmed it. If they didn’t, you just made them better.

– If someone responds aggressively to what you have said, remain calm. Other people in the room may not rush to your side because they do not want to draw the anger in their own direction. But chances are good that you have earned their respect. 

For All the People:

Breathe. This stuff is not easy, in either direction. Old habits die hard. But we have to start somewhere.

And, I am always on the side of putting the higher brain in charge, as we practice, practice, practice…new ways of being in the world that will come to feel more natural, authentic, and useful to you than they may now.

For any who do not already have this Power Breathing, 30 Second Mindset Reset to put the executive brain in charge, you can grab one on the “Complimentary…” pulldown at https://madelaineweiss.com

Warmly,

Madelaine