How to Guarantee a Life of Miscommunication
Background
In 1986, Charlie Munger (Vice Chairman of Berkshire Hathaway) gave an unconventional graduation speech to a high school class. It was titled, “How to Guarantee a Lifetime of Misery.”
Munger’s talk was inspired by one that Johnny Carson had given to a previous graduating class. Carson told the students that while he didn’t know a reliable way they could all be happy, he knew exactly how they could all be miserable. He believed that if the students could avoid his prescription for guaranteed misery, they might just end up happier.
In this same spirit, I share with you my own recommendations but for a different genre: how to guarantee a life of miscommunication. Like them, I speak from experience.
Communication Schmunication
So if you wish to be constantly challenged in this life by bad impressions and misunderstandings, I recommend that you:
1. Ignore the Two-You's Game
Around 300 BCE, the Greek philosopher Aristotle developed The Art of Rhetoric (Persuasion), after witnessing that logical arguments didn’t always win the audience.
He found that certain factors—separate from the facts—impacted an audience’s decision-making as well. These were things like: tone of voice, arousing sentiment (or resentment), charisma, deference, body language, etc. What swayed could persuade. Emotional appeals sometimes beat logical ones.
But for those of you who wish to master the art of terrible communication, you ought to look past what Aristotle brought to light, millennia ago. Ignore The Two Yous that coexist within us all: the “Emotional You” and a “Rational You”.
When someone is explaining their problems to you, it could be their “Rational You” looking for a real world solution. Or it could just as easily be their “Emotional You” wanting to be seen and heard. (Which “you” do you typically address here?)
The “Emotional You” sometimes misreads disagreements as disguised attacks. This can hijack your audience’s thinking, rendering their rational side largely powerless. Thus, emotional hijackings can sometimes get in the way of effective communication and cause folly—But what am I saying? For those that seek enjoyment through frustrated audiences, ignore the game-behind-the-game!
Now, some communicators will choose to win both hearts AND minds. They’ll appeal to both decision-making “Yous”. They’ll do this by mixing a logical argument with an emotional appeal because they understand they can’t totally ignore the “Emotional You”. And they’ll tend to get more of what they want from life.
But if you’ve taken the vow of poor communication, I highly recommend—speaking from personal experience—that your first thought with sensitive conversations always be, "What this conversation really needs is a rational and direct approach". Perhaps you could just list off a long string of facts, one-by-one, and pray for the best.
Miscommunication pro-tip: When you need to change someone’s mind, always try to do it on the spot.
2. Avoid Depersonalized Labels
My second recommendation for steering your conversations through the guardrails and off a cliff: remove depersonalized “labels” from your lexicon. Trust me.
Never use: “It sounds like…”, “It looks like…”, “It feels like…”, “This seems like…”, to make your points. This phrasing is a terribly helpful way to signal to your audience that you’re, in fact, merely making an interpretation. Go for certain-sounding statements instead. (And don’t read Chris Voss’s Book, Never Split the Difference, to learn how he mastered this approach while a FBI hostage negotiator, to help save lives.)
For example one could say:
You’re upset.
This is the right decision.
I know that won’t work.
This is the best option
Though a more nuanced communicator might say:
It sounds like you’re upset.
This feels like the best option
It seems like that won’t work.
This looks like the right decision.
Labels also get another thing right. They don’t use “I”. This avoids bringing unnecessary baggage into communication that can distract your audience.
Of course, highly self-aware communicators have already sensed that people quickly tire of opinions and judgments masquerading as truth (which raises communication barriers). The more nuanced communicators, they’ll find phrasing ideas with labels helps foster collaborative communication because labels signal to your audience that whatever the topic, you’re willing to consider their side. The emotional “You” likey this.
But some may delight in rubbing an audience the wrong way, and who am I to judge? For them, I suggest sticking with unequivocal sounding statements when voicing interpretations—avoid labels.
Throughout his long career at the FBI, Hostage Negotiator Chris Voss’ success shows how this very technique has even helped save lives across the world. Voss’s example shows the enticing way that nuanced communication will help you get what you want in life.
However, if you’re interested in a life riddled with communication crime, I encourage you to deep-six Voss’s work. Eliminate depersonalized “labels” from your toolbox.
3. Ignore Circumstance
This takes me to miscommunication tip #3: Ignore that circumstance may play a large roll in your audiences’ position. Pretend your counterpart isn’t beholden to, or motivated by, some non-obvious circumstance.
Others will, of course, understand that there exists hidden circumstances guiding their audience’s position. These circumstances could be related to their audience’s personal history, work situation, financial position, family values, life stage, cultural values, etc. And they’ll affect motivations. Once again, this game-behind-the game rears its head.
Higher-level communicators, those who understand the invisible hand of conversation, will ask better questions armed with this knowledge. They keep in mind, “Know thy audience”, and so they’ll be more empathetic. They’ll gain additional insights. They’ll be better at getting to the bottom of matters.
But for those seeking black-belts in The Art of Terrible Communication and who revel in unsolved mysteries, you should just stick to the tip-of-the-iceberg model for communication—You & The Audience (aka the 2D model). Ignore the more sophisticated model—You, The Audience & Circumstance (aka the 3D model), which suggests the less obvious but no less significant element that permeates all communication.
In Dax Sheperd’s podcast with FBI Hostage Negotiator Chris Voss, they point out that a conversational model which includes a situational dimension depersonalizes communication in a way that's helpful. It’s a more understanding communication mental model. It opens up dialogue for richer understanding.
However, some like creating chaos for themselves and who am I to judge? If you happen to enjoy being plagued by recurring misunderstandings and the aftermath, then you should turn a blind eye to the role of circumstance—and that anyone you’re talking to might be beholden by them.
4. Avoid Open-Ended Questions
My fourth prescription for ruining communication—speaking from experience—is to never mix in open-ended questions, which are simply questions that start with “How” or “What” and that seek open-ended responses. You see, not all question-phrasings were created equal. Some are enjoyed more by your audience than others.
By only posing narrowly-framed questions to your audience, which seek merely “Yes”, “No”, or “Chicago”-like answers, it ends up saying to the audience (more or less): “I don’t care much for what you have to say.” (And once again, don’t read this work by Chris Voss to find out more on the matter).
For example one could say:
Do you need help?
Why didn’t this work?
Did you have a good day?
Did you have a good time?
But a more nuanced communicator might say:
How can I help?
What happened?
How was your day?
What’d you think?
Open-ended questions imply no fixed answer. Yet they get answers. They do this, in part, because they more or less say: “I want to hear what you have to say.” The answers will be more informative. They’ll suggest to your audience an equal, back-and-forth, communication dynamic. The emotional “You” likey this.
Phrasing questions in open-ended ways, by using “How” or “What”, are terribly helpful ways to communicate. But if you wish to clearly signal to your audience that you have little interest in hearing them out what better way than sticking to close-ended questions? Did they or didn’t they? Do they or don’t they? After all, could they really have much to say?
Of course, other people will reap great rewards in life from utilizing open-ended phrasing. They know that phrasing matters. They’ll be more pleasant and empathetic to be around. They’ll be preferred.
But if you happen to enjoy a life of conversation crime, I recommend you strike open-ended phrasing from your vocabulary.
5. Be Unentertaining
My last recommendation to really nail awful communication: be unentertaining with words, phrases, stories and examples. Be boring.
And never say things, perhaps like these, to keep communication entertaining:
“He’s all hat and no cattle.”
“They’re trippin’ over dollars to pick up dimes.”
“Beggars can’t be choosers.”
“I’m basically herding cats.”
“You gotta dance with the one that brought you.”
“She casts quite the spell.”
So if you wish to keep things yawn-able, you should be very literal—avoid vivid metaphors and idioms. Avoid vivid phrasing. Avoid indirect communication. Instead, a boring communicator should stick with a sort of caveman-like vocabulary, spoken in a way that’s direct, monotone (“Beullar. Beuller.”) and always on the nose.
Vivid words and colorful phrases easily come to mind for your audience. That’s just how we’re wired. People who’re entertaining with language can be more likeable and fun to be around. They’ll be less exhausting. They’ll get more opportunities. And their main points will be more memorable because they know: descriptions matter.
Aristotle believed the right place to be in your interactions was in a Goldilocks’ zone between boorish and a buffoon—to be entertaining. But if you wish to master the art of terrible communication, I recommend you ignore this. Trust me.
Miscommunication Pro-Tip: Bonus points if you frequently find ways to NOT keep conversation light-hearted.
Improve Your Communication
If you get rid of the “bad stuff” in communication, whatever remains will inevitably be better and improve your outcomes.
And so, how should this “What not to do” advice end? Perhaps a back-asswards way would be fitting. May you climb high in life, by avoiding a few lowly communication missteps along the way.
Author’s Note
Benjamin Franklin’s wisdom that, “If you wish to persuade, appeal to interest not reason.” Franklin’s wisdom shows that reason is sometimes not enough in itself.
Aristotle also established Ethos (Ethics) as a rhetorical advice, which I leave out.
*Two-Yous: I first came across this framing for “Thinking vs Feeling” in Ray Dalio’s book, Principles.