Don McMinn

I’m continually befuddled and frustrated by one-sided conversations. 

• I recently sat next to a person on a three-hour flight. I asked him about his career and family and he responded in detail. He never asked about mine.
• Mary and I had dinner with another couple. We initiated conversation about their world; they never asked about ours.

It seems to me that the focus of casual conversations should normally be evenly divided among participants. If there are four people present, each one should have about 25% of the focus. Granted, if I had dinner with a famous person whom I admire, I might want the conversation to revolve around her; but otherwise, conversations should be distributed.  

If you’re the victim of a lopsided conversation, take the initiative to direct the conversation. For instance, when in the midst of a one-sided-leaning conversation, sometimes I’ll pursue balance by answering the same questions I’ve asked. If I ask someone “tell me about your children,” I’ll then volunteer information about mine, even if it’s not requested. But it’s sad that I must do this.  

If you’re the perpetuator of lopsided conversations, think about what’s driving the inequality and address the fundamental problem; it’s probably one of the “self” words: self-centeredness, self-reverence, selfishness. The solution to this social and relational faux pas is found is Philippians 2: “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.” We should focus on others instead of ourselves.

We may be so self-absorbed that we truly aren’t interested in others, and that’s why we talk about ourselves exclusively. In which case we must discipline ourselves to behave right (ask about others) so that eventually our behavior will help us think right, that is, we’ll truly want to be interested in other people’s lives and want to prefer them. Every person has a story worth telling that we can benefit from hearing.

Let’s balance our conversations.

[reminder]What are your thoughts about this essay?[/reminder]

This post will be good news to everyone, except narcissists. 

Good news: When you’re in public, people don’t notice you as much as you think they do. 

We often think people are observing us when they’re not. We worry about the clothes we wear because we think people notice; they don’t. We’re overly self-conscious about how we act; no need to be. 

Social scientists call this the “spotlight effect.” It’s our tendency to think we’re being noticed more than we really are. 

Dozens of studies in social psychology have supported this phenomenon. In one test, psychologists asked some college students to wear bright yellow Barry Manilow t-shirts to a large introduction to psychology class. After the class, they asked the students who wore the tacky t-shirt to estimate how many of their classmates noticed them. Then the researchers asked the students in the classroom how many had noticed their classmates wearing the t-shirts. Few students had noticed those wearing the t-shirts; those who wore the t-shirts greatly overestimated the number of people who had noticed.

So what explains the “spotlight effect”? Scientists conclude it is the result of egocentrism. We all are the center of our own universes so it’s hard to develop an accurate evaluation of how much we are noticed. The “spotlight effect” manifests from the innate tendency to forget that although one is the center of one’s own world, one is not the center of everyone else’s. This tendency is especially prominent when one does something atypical. 

The spotlight effect does not necessarily imply that we are arrogant or value ourselves more than others, but that our perception of the world is primarily from our own perspective and even what we think other people think of us is self-imposed. 

Don’t confuse being self-aware with being self-conscious. The former is good and necessary for emotional health and proper social interactions. But the term self-conscious usually describes someone who is ill at ease or uncomfortable with himself/herself as an object of the observation of others. Symptoms of being self-conscious include: getting angry or hostile when embarrassed; avoiding social experiences; blaming others for one’s mistakes; blaming yourself for other people’s mistakes; low self-esteem; and feeling agitated, anxious, depressed, or nervous based on what you think other people think of you. 

There’s no simple solution to our struggle with being self-conscious; it’s a complicated issue. If you struggle inordinately, visit with a trained counselor.  

This post simply offers insight that might bring some relief: people are not noticing you as much as you think they are.

[reminder]What are your thoughts about this essay?[/reminder]

[callout]You should be committed to lifelong learning. Otherwise, you’ll become quickly outdated and out of sync. This article, from the October 13 edition of the New York Times, underscores the point. It’s titled 60 Years of Higher Education – Really?[/callout]

One short phrase from the New Testament can help maintain healthy relationships both at home and work. It provides a quick and sure way to clarify misunderstandings, resolve problems, and properly express anger.

Speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15).

There are three parts to this precept and you’ve got to get all three right or it doesn’t work. It’s like a recipe with three ingredients—each is essential. 

So let’s consider each part. 

Speak

If you’re upset at someone or think there’s been a misunderstanding, talk—initiate a conversation. Being mute will not solve problems and there’s no virtue in ignoring difficult issues or avoiding unpleasant discourse. When you’re upset at someone, there are two extremes to avoid: don’t be a stuffer or a spewer. Stuffers don’t say anything; spewers are quick to speak, but what they say and how they say it is often offensive. This verse is an antidote for both extremes. 

Speak the truth

When engaged in a peace-seeking conversation, be careful to speak only truth. Most of us wouldn’t tell a bold-faced lie, but we may be tempted to distort facts, exaggerate facts, make assumptions, or only speak part of the truth (naturally, the part that substantiates our position). Instead, we must speak only the truth and all the truth. This will require pursuing facts to verify truth; investigate until you’re convinced you have good facts regarding the issue.

Speak the truth in love

Some people, armed with the truth, think they have a “007 license to kill”; there are no restraints on how and when they express themselves and no concern for the impact their words will have on the recipient. But this verse governs and restricts our speech such that we must frame our words in love. This will impact when we share, how we share (tone of voice, body language), and even our motivation for speaking.  

Begin by considering your motivation for initiating the conversation. Are you motivated by love for the person you approach, or is your intent to belittle, embarrass, or insult? Perhaps you’re just wanting to vent because it will make you feel better. Proceed only when your motivation is pure.

You’ll also need to consider how “in love” might be defined by the person(s) you speak to–what is his or her individual criteria for what “in love” means? For instance, someone’s preferences may be expressed as: “I don’t mind you bringing up a potentially difficult subject, but,

• • Not as soon as I get home from work.
  • Not in front of the kids.
  • Don’t raise your voice at me.
  • Allow me to share my side of the story.
  • Not when I’ve just returned from a business trip.
  • Not in front of the entire staff.”

Before you engage with an individual, consider how he or she would prefer to be approached so you can customize your conversation to accommodate his or her individual preferences.  

Most misunderstandings and minor conflicts can be resolved through civil discourse. Ephesians 4:15 offers a good template.

[reminder]What are your thoughts about this essay?[/reminder]

While differing widely in the various little bits we know, in our infinite ignorance we are all equal. —Karl Popper

Donald Rumsfeld was the U.S. secretary of defense under both presidents Gerald Ford and George Bush. One of his claims to fame was to distinguish different kinds of knowing and not knowing. He said:

“There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.” 

I want to add one phrase to his statement and comment on each one.

There are known knowns. Things we know that we know.

I know how to tell time, that I live in the 21st century, how to drive a car, that chianti wine is made from the Sangiovese grape, basic math, etc.

There are known unknowns. Things we know we don’t know. 

I don’t know how to speak Mandarin, overhaul a car engine, understand the Higgs boson, or perform an appendectomy.  

There are unknown knowns. Things we think we know but we don’t. (My sentence.)

In their good book, The Knowledge Illusion, Sloman and Fernbach make an unassailable argument that all humans know much less than we think we do; we all suffer from the illusion of understanding. For instance, how does a flush toilet really work? Or a speedometer? A quartz watch? We’re familiar with these items but we have no clue how they work.

There are unknown unknowns. Things we don’t know we don’t know.

To me, this is the most frightening and exhilarating truth. Frightening because I’m unaware of threats and compromises that may assail me. Exhilarating because there are infinite realms of knowledge that I can explore, enjoy, and benefit from. We are all unique in what we know, and similar in our infinite stupidity. 

Rumsfeld’s statement was in the context of military threats and opportunities, in which most unknowns are seen as dangerous and threatening. But in a civilian context, unknowns can represent an infinite source of good and beneficial knowledge.

An important prerequisite to lifelong learning is to become progressively convinced of our unfathomable ignorance and to develop a keen desire to pursue the unknown.

Since 2006, a course entitled Ignorance has been taught at Columbia University. Guest scientists are invited to speak about what they don’t know. The course focuses on things that are not in textbooks and thus teaches students to think about what is unknown and what could be known.

If I lived in New York City, I would enroll in this course.

[reminder]What are your thoughts about this essay?[/reminder]