Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

How did we communicate without psychologists?


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1    pantodragon

pantodragon

    Remote Viewer

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 551 posts
  • Joined:28 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:On vacation in Beetleguese

Posted 27 June 2013 - 02:11 PM

I might have known there’d be some scientist out there “analysing” conversation.  Is nothing sacred these days?

But this scientist’s a real smart cookie.  She’s realised that that people talk in different ways depending upon the situation.  Amazing, eh?!!  So, to use her example, a criminal will talk in different ways to the police, to his mother, to his priest, to his lawyer, to his children, to his wife.  These differences, she tells us, depends on the “stake” the criminal has in the conversation i.e. on with whom he is conversing and his relationship with that person.  Actually, this sounds suspiciously like what used to be called “transactional analysis”.  Except now that we live in a “stakeholder” society, the language has been updated to something more fashionable, and so one does not converse according to the role one is playing, but according to one’s “stake” in the conversation.  Anyway, make of that lot what you will……

This smarty-pants scientist has also realised that role playing scenarios such as those used to train police, lawyers, doctors etc aren’t that good.  Another priceless insight! The problem is that one of the roles is played by an actor and so the conversations are not authentic, rendering the training next to useless.  However, she has hit on a real seller.  She has realised that using real-life recorded conversations and scenarios are much better for training and so looks to be set to be making a killing by selling her training courses to the police, lawyers, doctors etc. --- I need hardly add that advertising is also very interested in her work on “analysing” conversations.

Something else this super-clever psychologist is going to do is use her analysis of conversation to put us right on a few things, such as the relative importance of body-language or the effects of silence during conversations.  She’s going to do this, as I said, by analysing conversations.  Normally this sort of analysis is done by getting lab rats i.e. you and me, to answer questionnaires.  This sharp-as-a-needle scientist, however, has hit on the idea of using REAL conversations as the basis of her analysis.

So, let’s recap, she’s going to use her research results to tell us about the effects of silence during “conversations”.  I hate to say this, I’d hate to put a spanner in her works, but isn’t there a better (e.g. cheaper, more reliable, more authentic etc) way to explore the effects of silence?  How about personal experience?

Let me see now……..I have experienced the effects of conversational silence in many forms.  For example, I was once held suspect of a petty theft and subjected to a police interview.  (My landlady finally discovered that, far from being stolen, her purse got lost down the back of the sofa.)   The police used the “silent treatment” on me.  It was ghastly.  They just stood there with me in her kitchen watching me and saying nothing.  Abnormal behaviour such as this is incredibly un-nerving and extremely intimidating.  I really felt horribly on edge the entire time.  I wanted to blurt out that I was innocent, yet I felt that if I did so, the manner of my outburst would seem false, seem too hasty, and therefore cast suspicion upon me anyway.

Then there was the time I had a disagreement with my boss.  He interviewed me in his office and basically talked me into silence; all I could finally do was to sit in silence, his words grinding me down.  I left the interview feeling utterly demoralised and defeated.  However, as I later came to realise (via a dream) my boss did not have it all his own way, as I had at first supposed.  I have a very expressive face.  The dream brought to my attention that even though I sat in silence, the unconscious rolling of my eyes heavenwards, the unconscious pursing of my lips, the unconscious action of putting my tongue in my cheek and saying “Uh-huh” in a way loaded with scepticism/disbelief, was a silence that spoke volumes.  Although I felt defeated by being reduced to silence, I had, in fact, put up a sterling defence.

And that experience points to the subtleties of “conversation” that no scientist, no social psychologist, can EVER hope to understand let alone catch a glimpse of.  The human mind is simply far too complex to be able to analyse its workings through “conversation”.

I have had a very recent conversational experience that is simply FAR beyond anything any scientist could grasp.  It involved the use of intuition and divination (interpretation of a dream) and the input of the Quew.  (Please see earlier posts such as Pantodragon’s world in a nutshell for explanations of my view of the world and the function of the Quew within it.)

First, the dream: I am at a function with some old friends that I knew in real life.  One is wearing a wig of golden hair.  I describe to her a funny event that happened to me.  Her reaction is to stonewall me.  (Stonewalling is such common behaviour with people, as it was with this former friend!)  I then give her a rollicking for something she had done, at which she takes great offence.  A few seconds later I make peace between us by complimenting her on her golden wig.

Interpretation: I am a naturally very direct and forthright person.  Inevitably, when I speak to people in this way, they often “take offence” or “take it personally”.  (The game of “taking offence” is SO beloved of power addicts!)  So, how do I get round this problem?  How can I “be myself” and be direct with people yet still remain on speaking terms with them if they play their games?  The answer is to compliment them on what they pride themselves in being (this is the wig of golden hair --- the blonde haired, blue eyed boy/girl that they imagine themselves to be).

Now, unlike the aforementioned scientist, I KNOW that this situation is too complex for me to analyse.  This is where intuition (sometimes via the Quew) comes in.  For example, if I cannot identify a person’s particular conceit, the Quew can, and this insight can be communicated to me via intuition.  The result will be that I unconsciously “just happen” to choose exactly the right words that will appease and smooth over a situation.

A day or so later, a demonstration of the sort of situation described in my dream was provided.  I spoke to someone in a very direct manner.  Offence was taken and the person retaliated by attacking me.  I did not back down.  But the words I replied with, chosen intuitively and not intended to compliment my attacker, did, as if by magic, press the right buttons such that I was immediately restored to her good graces.  So, a handy ability to have in a tight spot, eh?

As an aside, if this was not a world of power addicts, these tactics for aiding communication would not be necessary.  It is only in this world of power addicts, where words are used as weapons rather than for communicating, that learning these abilities is necessary to enable any sort of effective communication to take place.  Does our whiz-kid scientist realise this, I wonder.

Returning to the scientist putting us right on the relative significance of body language in conversations: has she considered the following, I wonder?  (BTW, this is a rhetorical question, for I already know the answer.)

She said that people vastly over-estimate the importance of body language during conversations, putting a figure of something like 90% on it i.e. 90% of what is communicated in a conversation is through body language.  She thinks the percentage should be much lower.

What she appears to fail to realise is the level of ability of the people conversing.  For example, all people are autistic to a greater or lesser degree (a consequence of power addiction).  Their ability to communicate is therefore severely hampered.  A symptom of autism is that people cannot “see” or “read” another person’s face, yet this is crucial to effective communication. The person to whom they are speaking is, at best, only a silhouette to them. Nor can autistic people, and that’s just about everyone out there, process the words spoken during a conversation.  These symptoms mean that people HAVE to rely on another’s body language during conversations.  So, yes, for most people body language is of HUGE importance during conversations.


Just in case any of you are wondering why power addiction leads to autism, here’s one reason.  If you are a power addict, then your focus during a conversation is not on what the other person is saying, your focus is on their emotional reaction to you.  You are looking for an emotional reaction to see if your words, used as weapons, remember, have hit home and had an effect.  Simples.


PS: Here’s the reason why this super-dooper scientist will never understand how conversation works: by her own admission, she is very ambitious i.e. she is a power addict.  (Her original aim was to make it in physics because it was a challenge, particularly for a woman, only taking up psychology when she failed her A-level physics.) Addiction to power and understanding are mutually exclusive.  The only way you can develop an understanding of the world and how the mind works, is to come off power.

How did we ever manage to communicate without psychologists?


#2    third_eye

third_eye

    _ M Ġ ń Ř Ī Ş_

  • Member
  • 6,645 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia

  • "Legio nomen mihi est, quia multi sumus"

    God has no religion ~ Mahatma Gandhi

Posted 27 June 2013 - 02:22 PM

Posted Image


mysteries never ceases ...


`



The knower and the known are one. Simple people imagine that they should see God, as if He stood there and they here. This is not so. God and I, we are one in knowledge. ~ Eckhart

~

third_eye ' s cavern ~ bring own beer


#3    pantodragon

pantodragon

    Remote Viewer

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 551 posts
  • Joined:28 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:On vacation in Beetleguese

Posted 27 June 2013 - 03:02 PM

View Postthird_eye, on 27 June 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:



mysteries never ceases ...


`


Sun Tzu invented the hug:" Hold your friends close, but your enemies closer".


#4    spartan max2

spartan max2

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,802 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

  • There's nothing so absurd that if you repeat it often enough

Posted 27 June 2013 - 03:22 PM

May i ask how old are you?

" I imagine that the intellegent people are the ones so intellegent that they dont even need or want to look "intellegent" anymore".
Criss Jami

#5    third_eye

third_eye

    _ M Ġ ń Ř Ī Ş_

  • Member
  • 6,645 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia

  • "Legio nomen mihi est, quia multi sumus"

    God has no religion ~ Mahatma Gandhi

Posted 27 June 2013 - 03:50 PM

View Postpantodragon, on 27 June 2013 - 03:02 PM, said:

Sun Tzu invented the hug:" Hold your friends close, but your enemies closer".

I believe hugs were inappropriate in China during the days of Master Sun Tzu  hence I most respectfully disagree ...
the accurate saying of Master Sun Tzu in English would be 'Keep  your friends close ... '

~ I bow ~

`

The knower and the known are one. Simple people imagine that they should see God, as if He stood there and they here. This is not so. God and I, we are one in knowledge. ~ Eckhart

~

third_eye ' s cavern ~ bring own beer


#6    pantodragon

pantodragon

    Remote Viewer

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 551 posts
  • Joined:28 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:On vacation in Beetleguese

Posted 27 June 2013 - 03:52 PM

View Postspartan max2, on 27 June 2013 - 03:22 PM, said:

May i ask how old are you?

Late 50s.


#7    spartan max2

spartan max2

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,802 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

  • There's nothing so absurd that if you repeat it often enough

Posted 27 June 2013 - 03:56 PM

View Postpantodragon, on 27 June 2013 - 03:52 PM, said:

Late 50s.

okay, i had no special reason for asking

Thanks :tu:

" I imagine that the intellegent people are the ones so intellegent that they dont even need or want to look "intellegent" anymore".
Criss Jami

#8    third_eye

third_eye

    _ M Ġ ń Ř Ī Ş_

  • Member
  • 6,645 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia

  • "Legio nomen mihi est, quia multi sumus"

    God has no religion ~ Mahatma Gandhi

Posted 27 June 2013 - 04:06 PM

View Postpantodragon, on 27 June 2013 - 03:52 PM, said:

Late 50s.

You write very well ... a writer by profession by any chance ?

`

The knower and the known are one. Simple people imagine that they should see God, as if He stood there and they here. This is not so. God and I, we are one in knowledge. ~ Eckhart

~

third_eye ' s cavern ~ bring own beer


#9    GreenmansGod

GreenmansGod

    Bio-Electric sentient being.

  • Member
  • 9,012 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Hurricane State

  • May the laughter ye give today return to thee 3 fold.

Posted 27 June 2013 - 04:38 PM

I don't know, I ususlly don't read your stuff, because it is for the best. :whistle:    What I get from it; you had a disagreement with your boss, scientist being wrong...??? Who, what and which???  

I walked out of business class one time saying y'all have no clue and you (pointing at the teacher) are training people to be a&& holes as I slammed the door. It was too late to drop the class, I took the test and failed.

I am self employed, starving artist.  There is not enough money in the world to get me back to working for a "business" school graduate.  I'll just lie here and starve to death, thanks.

"The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible." Salman Rushdie

#10    pantodragon

pantodragon

    Remote Viewer

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 551 posts
  • Joined:28 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:On vacation in Beetleguese

Posted 29 June 2013 - 02:30 PM

View Postthird_eye, on 27 June 2013 - 04:06 PM, said:

You write very well ... a writer by profession by any chance ?

`

Thank you.  No, I'm not a professional writer.  In fact, I think my writing would not have been half so good if I had been forced to please editors.  If it's good, it is because I have done it for pleasure and have felt free to follow my own whims and fancies.


#11    pantodragon

pantodragon

    Remote Viewer

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 551 posts
  • Joined:28 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:On vacation in Beetleguese

Posted 29 June 2013 - 02:41 PM

View PostDarkwind, on 27 June 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

I don't know, I ususlly don't read your stuff, because it is for the best. :whistle: What I get from it; you had a disagreement with your boss, scientist being wrong...??? Who, what and which???  

I walked out of business class one time saying y'all have no clue and you (pointing at the teacher) are training people to be a&& holes as I slammed the door. It was too late to drop the class, I took the test and failed.

I am self employed, starving artist.  There is not enough money in the world to get me back to working for a "business" school graduate.  I'll just lie here and starve to death, thanks.

I'm not sure what you are asking.  Your question is not specific enough.  As to your revelations of artistic integrity: I have said it myself and I'll say it again "Death before dishonour!", and what's more, I also have acted upon same --- my disagreement with my boss ended up finally in me resigning from my teaching post and my career as a teacher.  "There is not enough money in the world" to get me back to teaching.  The issue over which I resigned was one of free speech ---- when I felt issues needed to be discussed I was forced to "put up and shut up".  When I saw dubious practices, not to say outright abusive behaviour, again, I was forced to shut up.  Even worse, I was forced to lie to maintain the school's public image.


#12    GreenmansGod

GreenmansGod

    Bio-Electric sentient being.

  • Member
  • 9,012 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Hurricane State

  • May the laughter ye give today return to thee 3 fold.

Posted 29 June 2013 - 03:07 PM

View Postpantodragon, on 29 June 2013 - 02:41 PM, said:

I'm not sure what you are asking.  Your question is not specific enough.  As to your revelations of artistic integrity: I have said it myself and I'll say it again "Death before dishonour!", and what's more, I also have acted upon same --- my disagreement with my boss ended up finally in me resigning from my teaching post and my career as a teacher.  "There is not enough money in the world" to get me back to teaching.  The issue over which I resigned was one of free speech ---- when I felt issues needed to be discussed I was forced to "put up and shut up".  When I saw dubious practices, not to say outright abusive behaviour, again, I was forced to shut up.  Even worse, I was forced to lie to maintain the school's public image.

I can respect that.  Sometimes you got to stand your ground and demand respect and if you don't get it walk away.  The schools in the States have turned into a nightmare. I am glad I don't have kids in school anymore.  Ethics have given way to insanity and it endangers the future.

"The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible." Salman Rushdie




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users