My dad and I had a very long chat about communication styles and made some interesting observations about each other's styles. I'll share the ones he made about me. The first one was obvious - I don't talk about things I know little about. If I don't know something, I admit my ignorance and excuse myself from the discussion. The second one was a little more subtle - if I know I am right, I ensure that the other person knows that too, which can sometimes lead to animosity and a protracted debate.
Wikipedia is my ally; when I have time to spare and a computer at hand, I read! The curious spark is ignited by something usually on TV, either House or Frontline; most of the knowledge being acquired with no intent on retention or regurgitation. Now that I think about it, what I read isn't quite that random because I only watch programs on topics that remotely interest me. No surprise then that I am beginning to form opinions on these topics ranging from politics to medicine to the human condition, opinions that I openly express during discussions and arguments.
Routine stuff isn't it - you read, form an opinion, express it; why am I writing about this? Well, the devil doesn't only lie in the details, he also lies in the way the details are conveyed. If I have acquired anything at Microsoft, it is Courage of Conviction. When I know I am right, I tend to state my point aggressively and with authority, something that can alienate my audience. I don't know what the intent of the aggressive posture is, but I do know that it can lead to a disgust for my opinion which is certainly unintended. Ironically, once I know a lot about something, my arguments are extremely logical and backed by facts; I could potentially convince others of my point of view without any need for aggression. So what remains then is a need to alter the way I deliver my message, something that I know is definitely within my grasp.
You live, you listen, you learn...
No comments:
Post a Comment