It would be easy to assume that because we use the same vocabulary as our colleagues, friends and family that we all share a common language.  Our experience would seem to confirm this as we are able to communicate reasonably effectively with one another most of the time. 

However, much of what we routinely express only requires a broad brush without the need for nuanced detail.  When the message is more personal or complex, or the need for accuracy more acute, it may be harder to make ourselves understood.  Conversely, there are also times when we might fail to fully appreciate what is being said to us.

Successful communication is not about having a broad vocabulary and a good grasp of grammar.  Words are just one element, with the beliefs and emotions that lie behind them having equal importance.

For example a power differential will affect the value of the words being expressed.  The needs or wants of one person may override those of another, even when the same vocabulary is being used.  This could reflect an acceptable and recognised organisational hierarchy or one that is being covertly imposed.

It is not always the case that being fully understood by others is the main objective.  Sometimes people simply wish to be heard, to give their speech while others take a supporting role to the main drama.  In this case the deeper meaning lies even less in the words that are used than in the intention behind them.

The meanings of words are not restricted to those provided by dictionaries.  Regional differences in the use of language are well-known, but more importantly there are individual differences.  Appreciating all of the meanings that particular words may have for an individual paves the route that connects us.  This requires us to put our assumptions to one side so that we can identify and agree specific contextual meanings.  Confusion is often the result of incongruence between the words that are used and the meanings, or the assumed meanings, we ascribe to them. 

Authenticity is all important and if the message continues to be confused, then that may be all that can be communicated at the time.  For me it is very important that we develop our own authentic script, not take lines that we have inherited from other people in other contexts.  

I believe that intention is rooted in our beliefs and our emotions.  When these do not align with our words it is possible for two people to appear to be following the same course in their conversation, but as they are not using the same map arrive at very different destinations.  Neither has sought to check for common reference points along the way.  Had this occurred then it would have been apparent they were not journeying together and that their connection was superficial.

In all cases there will be an initial response to what is being said, which can assist or become a barrier to understanding and fully connecting with the speaker.  If there are hidden feelings or intentions, there is every chance they will be noticed and any contradiction with those that are being expressed will cause confusion.  This may lead to hostility, but will certainly result in a mixed message being communicated and the risk that one or the other will erroneously fill in the blanks. 

When speaking positively perhaps the emotion overrides any need for detail so that compliments may not require much clarification.  This may also be the case when we are being negative.  However if our intention is to offer a route for improvement, rather than simply to punish, it is important that the detail is communicated in a way that can be accepted.   Whatever roles we inhabit, there will always be times when it is necessary to be able to criticise and be understood without encouraging intrusive negative emotions in the other.

Within specific relationships many of us develop a language of intimacy over time which involves taking a series of small risks as we explore and share meanings.  Just as we develop a language of intimacy and friendship, we need also to agree a language of dissent so that we can communicate our dissatisfaction, or even anger, in a way that is properly heard and understood.

Short words like love and hate can have a multiplicity of meanings, in effect a specific set for each of us.  To really understand what is meant by what is being said, we need to take the time to understand as closely as possible what each word means for the other person.  This applies equally to the speaker and the listener, which is where the negotiating begins.  While you try to understand exactly what my spoken words mean for me, I endeavour to use words in a way that I know will have a particular meaning for you.

We cannot control how our messages are received.  We can make sure that the messages we are sending match our intention and are constructed to maximize the likelihood of being understood.  In this way communication can deepen, whatever the content, and mutual understanding can grow.

What is our intention and how accurately does it reflect our authentic feelings?  What is there in the other person that we might need to take account of to reduce any obstacles to the exchange?   The answers come from paying attention to the way another person talks and listens and being fully aware of how they are responding in real time to all that is being said.

Conversation is a dynamic process with many opportunities to check meanings through explicit questions and by monitoring responses.  Let us not assume that we know all of what is being said to us.  Let us recognize the need to confirm our understanding and to be willing to renegotiate language again and again to achieve the shared meaning that will bring us closer to each other.

© 2014 Michael Golding

People have long used models, metaphors and constructs as a way of trying to understand and explain the inner and outer worlds that we experience.  These can be physical models to describe the natural world we inhabit, or abstract models to attempt to describe the less tangible aspects of our lives. 

Some of these physical models, such as those depicting the relationship between the planets in our solar system, have been influenced by political and religious beliefs.  Labelling copper spheres and placing them in a particular order does not change the reality of planetary orbits, but does affect our perception of them. Over time these have been verified through scientific observation and amended if needed and when societal pressures allowed.  Abstract models are even more susceptible to political and religious influence as they are harder to prove.

Among each new wave of influencers, whether philosophers, physicians or politicians, are those who wish to cordon off an area of what they believe to be unique understanding.  Each new paradigm creates a fresh discourse which is supported by a new set of models, metaphors and constructs.  Putting it another way, each new way of looking at things leads to a new way of talking about them which often seems to require a language of its own.  If the central idea becomes generally accepted then so do the terms used to describe them and any mechanisms used to illustrate and explain.

An example would be Sigmund Freud's description of the Ego, the Super-Ego and the Id.  Many people, not just psychoanalysts, continue to use these words as nouns, which makes it easy to believe that they are describing real things.  They will refer to them as influencing or even directing our behaviour in such a way that while they are part of us they are also apart from us.  However, these are only constructs.   It would be far more accurate to refer to the Concept Freud called the Ego.  Clearly there is a need for short-hand but one that can be used without losing sight of the actual meaning.

Part of the legacy of Freud and his contemporaries is to have carried over the discourse of physical medicine into the abstract realm of our mental processes.  The proliferation of single nouns to describe ever more complex collections of feelings and behaviours now underpins an industry that has a significant impact on millions of people as well as generating huge profits for many of those involved.  

Applying the words health, illness and disease to our mental state suggests a direct comparison with our physical state.  However, these are only metaphors.  It is clear that we do not have a mental illness in the same way that we might have a physical illness.  While it can be helpful to use language that is understood in one setting to explain another, there is the risk that we will then make assumptions about the second based on our knowledge of the first.  This is clearly the case in the way we generally approach mental     dis-ease.  The metaphors become constructs before solidifying into accepted models.

We have long had an interest in trying to categorise ourselves and others through the use of IQ and Personality Tests.   The so-called Intelligence Quotient has a dark history rooted in the attempt to discriminate between ethnic groups in favour of the home team.  Like many experiments, it set up parameters and then measured people’s ability to meet their requirements.  When the objective is to identify people with a certain set of skills and abilities the process is relatively benign.  However, when certain parameters are elevated over others we are in danger of creating a hierarchy of winners and losers that is based on cultural values expressed as absolute values. 

Politicians frequently reduce their arguments to a case of either/or and good and bad, splitting the population between those who are for and those against.  Too often the explanation involves the simplification of a complex narrative that seems intended to make it easier for us to understand, but which also allows a bias to be embedded within.  

These many forms of illustration are a way in, a step towards understanding a more complex scenario. However once we are inside the view can be expanded, so that as we understand more the illustration gives way to the thing itself.  As we develop the skills to navigate we no longer need the short-cut.

I think it is important to remember that models, constructs and metaphors are tools that are used to help us understand complex ideas.  However they can never fully describe or explain them, are not a substitute and can never be a replacement.  I would agree with the principle that first there is the thing and then there is the name for it and that there is already one thing too many.

By appreciating the way that models, constructs and metaphors are being used we can separate the words from the things themselves and come to our own conclusions as to their meaning and value.  It is possible to acknowledge their usefulness as a way of helping us to understand, without succumbing to their tyranny as a way for other people to tell us how things are. 

© 2014 Michael Golding

Life is experienced in the present.  When we reflect on the past and imagine the future we are doing this within the present moment.  For most of us this moment is experienced as being a fixed point from which we look out onto the world.  As each moment passes it would be easy to assume that the point from which we view or experience them is always the same.  The idea that you cannot dip your hand twice into the same place in a moving river is a way of looking at the passage of time.  However this suggests that while the water flows, our position on the bank remains fixed.  This is not the case.  We are viewing an evolving landscape from a moving viewpoint, so we experience a kind of double parallax.

The passing of time means that we are always changing, as is the world around us, though mostly this is experienced as happening very slowly.  However, there are other aspects of this point from which we experience our world which are more noticeably different from one moment to the next.  

A simple example would be how our ability to concentrate fluctuates throughout the day and across the week.  While this may be rooted in metabolic function, our capacity to understand and interpret what is happening around us is affected, which then impacts on our ability to connect with other people.  Ideas and emotions that are easy to access and appreciate at certain times may become elusive.  This changing dynamic will impact directly on how we view the world and will be reflected in the way that others respond to us, which will be affected by their own current states of being.  

The changes in our ability to concentrate suggest there are a range of values and that we move between them.  All ranges can produce an average and it may be tempting to take this as being the real us.  To arrive at a single value would require us to map these levels over time to establish their frequency.  Would this mean that my experience either side of that average is less real and that during those times I am less truly myself?  

There are other aspects of my emotional state which fluctuate, such as my anxiety and my confidence. These are not just a product of my own state but are affected by environment and the people I meet. Irrespective of how I may be feeling initially, my confidence will be affected by the situations I find myself in and the way I am treated by those around me.  They will also be affected by me, so together we create a dynamic interaction that will change from one moment to the next. 

We could broaden the parameters to extend to opposites.  During every day we move between sadness and joy. For some people this can extend into depression while others reach towards mania.  Whatever the limits, there is always movement between the two positions from one moment to the next.

Rather than focus on a middle position, I believe it is better to acknowledge the variation as movement between two points with all positions being equally real and equally valid.  In considering so many aspects of me, being on a spectrum moving between two separate positions, rather than at any fixed point, more accurately reflects my experience.

This can provide a model for human development as it allows for movement in whatever parameter we choose.  Variation means that we are already moving back and forth, so we can drive this movement in our chosen direction.  Perhaps we can achieve this incremental change by focussing on what is needed to promote that movement.  With learning and skills development we can move along the spectrum and by sustaining this effort establish our upper and lower limits in a different place.

This also provides us with a model for difference as we can choose to regard everyone as being positioned along the same spectrum.   If we consider our range of skills and attributes extending in each direction then they will overlap with others who are at a different position from us.  Like us they will be constantly moving, sometimes closer to how we are and sometimes further away.  As long as we view the spectrum from left to right perhaps we can avoid the assumed value judgement that lies behind higher and lower.  It would be wonderful simply to acknowledge difference without assigning positive and negative values.

I embrace the knowledge that we are all constantly changing, orbiting around one another in an endless interactive dance.  When looking either side from our current position memory describes the past and imagination the future.  Only the way we are in this present moment can we be considered to be our true selves.

© 2014 Michael Golding

I use this phrase to refer to the ordinary empathy that all of us could show to one another every day, rather than the special empathy of the therapist or care professional.  In reality there is probably little difference between the two except in the frequency, and possibly the intensity, with which they are experienced.

For me empathy is easy to define but not always easy to achieve.  It could be said that there are degrees of empathy, and perhaps total empathy is only achieved for precious moments at a time.  I wonder if this variance in degree also explains why there are so many conflicting views of what it is and how it can be achieved.

I believe that there are two separate elements that need to be combined for an empathic connection to be made.   The first step is properly attending to the other person.  This is much more than simply listening to any words that are being spoken.  It is about paying attention with all of our senses to what is actually being communicated.  A simple example would be somebody telling you they are fine when their face looks troubled or their body seems to be sagging as though shouldering an invisible weight.  A more complex example would be someone seeming to talk about one thing when they are really talking about something else.  In both cases the true meaning of what is being communicated goes beyond the words being used.

Giving someone our full attention also means listening without presuming to know what is being said.  When someone is talking it can be tempting to assume that we understand what they are saying even before they have finished their sentence.  This may be through a cultural short-hand or familiarity based on previous experience.  To facilitate dialogue it is easy to use these assumptions to prepare our own response while the other continues to speak, even though this risks missing out on some of the detail of what is being said.  The exchange that results may be dynamic but will struggle to achieve any depth. 

There are many phrases that we use to reassure the other that we have understood which have themselves become further obstacles to communication.  Telling someone that you have heard them is unnecessary.  If it is true then it does not need to be said, but if the point has been missed then saying this will add another layer to the barrier that is growing between you.  

Studies of micro-expressions show that we unconsciously provide a range of information through our facial muscles and other gestures that communicate our thoughts and feelings.  Work carried out with babies and animals have highlighted the accuracy and importance of these non-verbal indicators.  The words we use can illuminate the stories we wish to tell, but can also obscure their meanings, whether intentionally or not.   Where there is uncertainty about what is being communicated we can ask for further clarification or check out the accuracy by recounting what we believe we have understood.  All the information that we need to understand one another is before us, we simply need to take notice.

The second element, and where I believe attempts at empathy so often break down, is using our imagination.  Empathy begins with our ability to imagine what it would be like to be the other person experiencing the situation they have described.  This is very different from remembering when something similar happened to us, or to someone we know, and sharing our understanding.  This would be relating to the experience of another.  Neither is it imagining what it would be like if it happened to us and focussing on how we might feel in the same situation.  This is identifying with the experience of the other and, if we are feeling negative emotions, we may sympathise with them.

Both of these responses have their place but are based on our experience, whether real or imagined.  If the situation were to be experienced by us it would be different from the account that we are hearing.  While the supposed familiarity of the experience could give us a feeling of having made a connection, we may well have created an obstacle to any real understanding.  Empathy is imagining what it was actually like for the other person. 

When we apply ordinary empathy we have the opportunity to understand one another better.  This is because we are not interpreting through a comparison with our own lives, we are endeavouring to understand the other’s life as lived by them.  We gain a greater insight into who they are and why they do what they do and, as a result, we will be better able to connect with them. 

The consequences of a failure to connect can be significant and may increase over time.  Initially my inability to understand what you wish me to know means we cannot bridge the gap between us.  The more failed attempts there are, the harder it will become.  Repeated failures may mean that one or both of us gives up trying.  Not understanding how another person thinks or feels leads to separation, and possibly isolation, and will be a constant barrier to intimacy.

I believe that empathy, and the intimacy that results, is a way of overcoming the existential isolation that we experience throughout our lives.  Fully appreciating the lives of others allows us to form connections.  Understanding others helps us to understand ourselves. Valuing another to the point where we put ourselves to one side so that we can truly connect with them is a measure of how much we care for them. 

Empathy does not need to be taught.  There was a time before we knew spoken language when all we had to rely on was our understanding of the visual clues offered to us by others.  We need to dial down the white noise of our own egos and assumptions to connect with the purer notes being broadcast to us.  Once the details are understood, our imagination can create a bridge into the hearts and minds of another.

© 2014 Michael Golding

As a child I was taught to value personal and professional integrity and, traditionally, our social hierarchies have been structured around these values.  However, there are numerous examples of people who have found success by denying their true selves.  These could be people exaggerating their work histories, perhaps inventing or embellishing their qualifications, or more obvious forms of deception such as lying about the life they have lived. 

These false stories may be the result of self-delusion, which might be intentional or have come about through the influence of others, or they could be created through a deliberate attempt to mislead.  Either case would mean that there is a second story that may be in awareness but that is being kept back.

Any success that is achieved through the promotion of this false self will be due in part to our willingness to accept the stories that they have chosen to tell to us.  Some perpetrators would call this gullibility, which suggests that it is our fault that we have been taken in and is for me a poor attempt at shifting responsibility. Behind any intentional deceit lies a lack of respect, possibly even contempt, for those being deceived.  

There are many examples of people whose stories did not reflect their real intentions as evidenced by their actions.   Once their true selves were revealed people recalled aspects of their stories that had not appeared to be authentic but which were not challenged at the time.  We seem to be particularly tolerant of this lack of authenticity in public figures such as entertainers and politicians.  Why would we choose to collude with this deceit when we are able to detect a lack of authenticity in the stories of others?

For me the explanation begins with the stories that we tell ourselves about ourselves and that we are then able tell to others.  I believe it is through comparison with our own accounts of our own experiences that we are able to validate those of other people.   Perhaps when we are misrepresenting our own portraits and histories we are more willing to accept the fabricated accounts of others.

I imagine that the earliest stories we create for ourselves would be constructed from mirror reflections of those around us.  As children we may look to other people to tell us how we are then we try it out to see if there is a good fit with what we believe to be real about ourselves.  Though initially we may need to rely on others, we soon begin to develop our own understanding of what is right for us.  This requires a naturally growing sense of self which we can regularly test against our lived experience.  For all of us there will be plenty of people in our lives eager to tell us who we are and how to be.  These may be people we interact with or characters that we come to know through other routes. 

Problems will arise if our sense of self does not develop sufficiently strongly to resist the multiple messages coming from those around us.  They too are continuously developing their narratives and where these lack the integrity of being rooted firmly in their personal reality, may require validation from others through a collusive inauthenticity.  To understand the reasons behind this we would need to look at the payoffs for all concerned in sustaining this false dynamic.  Perhaps our willingness to accept a lack of authenticity in others allows us the same opportunity.  

The journey towards authenticity is a life-time project that both accumulates and evolves. There is a continuous cycle of gaining knowledge about ourselves through imaginative understanding and then seeing how it works for us as a lived reality.  We can use feedback from both the external world of our relationships with others and our internal world of intuitive understanding.  The double touchstones of head and heart will tell us when our compass is pointing the right way, and the more often it is brought into play the more accurate it will become.  Intuitively and objectively, we come to know what feels right for us and what is working well for us in our experiences of others.  This is a spiral that we continue to work our way around as we move ever closer to our authentic core.

There will always be challenges in trying to remain authentic in all that we do, however I believe that there are greater dangers in not acting in line with our authentic selves. Swimming against the tide will always be harder than swimming with it, and we will make slower progress.  The same will be true when acting against your true self.  There are implications for psyche and soma, mind and body, of not being our true selves.  The most obvious outcome is stress.  Though not always a negative, it is not sustainable for any length of time and will lead to a myriad of negative impacts that are well documented.

Sometimes being authentic can also feel like we are moving against the current when the situation seems to require a behavioural response that is out of keeping with our authentic self. There is a difference between being authentic and acting in an authentic way.  We can choose to behave in a way that is not in line with our authentic selves.  We will not be drawing upon the best in us and such situations can only be endured for a short time without incurring some negative impact.

How authentic is the view that you have of yourself, of what is important to you and what is particular about you?  How is this reflected in the stories that you tell others?  No matter how hard it may be to act in line with our authentic selves, I believe that the outcome will reward the effort.  Once we are in touch with our own authentic selves we are also better able to recognise the authentic, and the false, in others.

A balanced wheel can spin at high speed for long periods without any wobbling or vibration that would cause it to fail; a well-trimmed sail does not flap or buzz but curves gracefully, silently capturing the power of the wind. There are plenty of metaphors that describe sustained high performance through matching qualities to purpose.  Perhaps it is only when we fully understand our qualities that we may truly know our purpose.  

© 2014 Michael Golding