Conversation Geometry

The air in the car was thick with tension. Both of us frustrated, angry.

I said a quick prayer under my breath.

And suddenly, the fog lifted.

The conversation had not gone where I intended. Somehow, slowly, one step at a time, it had taken a 45 degree turn from where I had intended to go.

The problem was that I had not clearly defined the purpose of the conversation. So when his reply gently knocked the conversation off center, I didn't recognize it. And then I replied to his reply and knocked it clearly off the path to my intended destination. With each rebuttal, it went further off course.

It's something I've noticed happens a lot. A huge percentage of arguments or discussions never reach their potential because I allow them to be steered off course...to a topic that might be related...but isn't really ON topic at all.

So, here's a scenario.

A friend asked me to go with her to talk to a member of a group we are in about her habitual tardiness. She was coming in late, causing a disruption.

My friend started the conversation well, "when you stand in the dining room visiting and making your coffee and don't come into the group in a timely manner, I feel disrespected and disoriented and distracted. I need you to come into the room at the designated time." The reply from the lady we were confronting was too long to recount but she agreed to make her way into the room in a timely manner. But then, without missing a beat, she brought up a conversation we had had two weeks before, when my friend had used a word that this person did not like. The subtle transition made it seem like this topic fit into the conversation, but it really didn't. My friend then responded to that specific comment and the discussion became heated.

After watching this derailment unfold, it confirmed something I had been thinking a lot about. Because I was an impartial bystander, I was able to recognize the tactic for what it was...a derailment. So I stepped in, acknowledged that the purpose of the conversation (the fellow participant coming to class in a timely manner) had been reached and anything further was another topic and could be discussed later, as it's own purpose.

When I go into a conversation, I have to have a clear purpose, a defined end goal.

Without that, I won't be able to perceive subtle derailments. And I will leave the conversation feeling frustrated, which has the potential for further miscommunication and conflict.

When considering my responses, I need ask myself...with this end game in mind...is what I am about to say 1) on topic? Does it support my goal for this conversation or is this opening up the conversation to other topics...which will take the conversation off course? and 2) as concise as I can be? The more words I use the more likely it is that the conversation will become distracted and result in unwanted and hurtful conflict that doesn't lead to peace.

Communication is important, and during conversations, especially difficult ones, a lot of emotions and beliefs come into play. Those beliefs drive how I act and respond. Emotions can have a big impact and can be a huge distraction during conversations. If I am being confronted, I might feel hurt, embarrassed and exposed, which could lead to pride, defensiveness and blame shifting.

For example, if Michael says "when you correct me in front of the kids, I feel disrespected"...I might feel defensive and shift the blame back to him with "well you do ________".

The thing is, him doing ________ does not change the fact that he feels disrespected when I correct him in front of the kids. Yes, _______ might be something I need to address with him, but right now we are talking about how he feels when I correct him in front of the kids. It is wrong to continue behaviors that make him feel disrespected, regardless of whether HE is the perfect spouse. This would be a situation where Michael could say "you know, you're right, I do that. Let's write that down and set a time to talk about that later."

Instead of allowing my emotions to dictate my actions, I have to tell myself the truth. Yes, I am feeling hurt, embarrassed and exposed, because I believe

1.)that he is being mean to me by pointing out my flaws.
2.)that he does wrong things when the kids are around and that I need to correct him.
3.)that he has just as many flaws as I do and he has no business pointing out mine.

1.) Is it true that he is being mean by pointing out my flaws? No. Being truthful and standing up for himself is not being mean. He is addressing the truth that he feels disrespected.

2.) He may do things wrong in front of the kids, but does that mean I have to correct him in front of them? No. The truth is, it would be more productive for me to wait until they aren't around to address it.

3.) Does he have just as many flaws as me? Yes. Does that mean he has no business pointing out my flaws? Absolutely not. That is my pride talking. Pride has no voice in this issue.

So the truth here is that I correct him in front of the kids, he feels disrespected, and I need to find another time to correct him. Anything else is a distraction. It MAY be truth, but it is not pertinent to this conversation.

That conversation we had in the car? After I said the prayer, I defined for myself the purpose of the conversation and I was able to communicate that to Michael. We acknowledged the problem, resolved it and went away feeling close and empowered.

Communication is powerful, but often I allow pride to prevent it from happening affectively. But it's not worth it. That feeling of closeness is worth staying on topic and hearing him out.