Solano Psychotherapy Associates

Hey, have you ever wondered what is going on under the surface in your conversation with another person?   How much do the two of you agree on what is being communicated?  Not much, probably.  For example, consider this seemingly simple conversation:

  Martha says to George:  “You want to sit down and watch this show with me?”  George says:  “Well, I’m supposed to be over at a friend’s house in a few minutes.  They’re waiting for me.”

Under the surface Martha was thinking just before she spoke:  “There’s that cute guy who lives next door, he always seems busy and never says more than “hi” to me so maybe he’s not interested in me; I’ll test him and see.  George was thinking “Whoa, her door is open, maybe I can catch a glimpse.”  He sees her sitting in front of the TV and when she looks up, he thinks “Oh shit, she caught me looking at her.”  Hearing her invitation to sit down, he’s too surprised and scared to respond with a simple “OK” and instead says he’s supposed to be at a friend’s house.  He walks on feeling bad about himself, thinking “She’ll never want to talk to me again.” She feels that she has made a fool of herself and thinks” I knew he wasn’t interested, I should of kept my mouth shut.”

Twenty years after George and Martha did manage to get together, Martha says to George:  “You want to sit down and watch this show with me?”  George says:  “Well, I’m supposed to be over at a friend’s house in a few minutes. They’re waiting for me.”

Under the surface Martha was thinking just before she spoke:  “He’s ignoring me again and I know he doesn’t want to spend any time with me anymore, watch this, I’ll prove it to myself.”  George was thinking “I know she knows I’m getting ready to go to Frank’s house and is going to start in on me so I’ll feel guilty.”  Hearing her invitation to sit down, he’s too afraid of getting into a fight that he wont know how to resolve so he brushes it off with his comment by saying he’s “supposed” to be a his friends house and then justifies his brush-off with the comment that “They’re waiting for me.”  They both feel bad and angry for several hours after the conversation.

Both of these conversations could have gone well with more emotional honesty on either person’s part.  But this isn’t easy for everyone to do, and it can get tougher as people know each other better.  Why’s that?

My work as a psychologist is often about how communication gets entangled into a mess.   I thought it might be interesting to write about this from a few of the perspectives I have gained in my work.   

There are many things that interfere with clear and complete communication.  We often say more non-verbally than we do verbally.  Also, what we are trying to say often isn’t what is heard.   Sometimes both people are unaware of what the other is experiencing.   And to complicate things even more, we generally don’t speak about these differences.   One of the hardest things to do in this culture is speak truth to power, and this difficulty begins as infants attempt to communicate with caregivers.   Attachment theory, communications theory, sociology, the study of linguistics, and the psychodynamic theory of psychological defenses all have important contributions to understanding a moment of interaction. 

We are social animals and it is impossible for any two people in the same room not to communicate.   Yet it can be very difficult to discuss what is being communicated in any one moment.  There are many factors that inhibit and muddy communication, from both the speaker’s side and the listener’s side.  Any person speaking may have emotions and motives he is not aware of,  psychological defenses that interfere with his intended message, and a misunderstanding of how the listener is hearing him.  Any person listening may have also have emotions, motives, defenses, and an internal world that leaves her hearing, feeling, thinking something totally different than what the speaker believes.  We people are not always conscious of how we are coming across, some more than others.  Nor are we necessarily conscious of others’ motivations and feelings.  Every day we see people who have ways of interacting in which they are unaware.  

The parent-infant studies from which attachment theory derives demonstrate the early transmission of communicational patterns from parent to infant.  One example of a communicational pattern comes from a parent whose interactional style is classified as “dismissive” of her own and others emotions (for more information and other classifications see the literature on attachment theory and the research on parent-infant interactions in the “Strange Situation,” such as the  research by Mary Ainsworth and Mary Main).  The research shows also that this “Dismissive” parent will likely have an “Avoidant” infant, one who tends to avoid demonstrating anxiety or emotional connection to mother as she leaves or enters the “strange situation” in which the research is being conducted.    The heart monitor on this infant, however, spikes higher than other infants who cry openly as mother leaves and returns demonstrating that this infant, in order to optimize connection with mother, has learned to inhibit his self-expression.   Longitudinal studies show that these attachment patterns can last a lifetime.  As an adult, a person with this attachment pattern will be anxious in moments of true intimacy and avoidant of spontaneous emotional interaction.   His unexpressed emotions will have to find other routes since it is impossible for humans to totally shut off expression of  internal experiences for extended periods of time.  As a result of the stress from holding back expression of emotion on one hand, while the body is attempting to find a route to emotional expression on the other, symptoms and psychological defenses are formed.  This whole process can happen outside a person’s awareness.  

  It is common for people with the above attachment pattern to mistake emotional information for directives and judgments or “shoulds.”   This can result in an argument when the listener is feeling differently.  For example, take the statement from a wife to her husband:  “We haven’t been to my parents house for months!” as she is feeling guilty and worried about how her parents will interpret that fact.  She is hoping that her husband will help her feel better about caring through with their plans to take the kids to the beach for the weekend.  But, as one of the avoidant/dismissive types, he misinterprets her to mean that he shouldn’t want to go to the beach and that he should consider taking the family to see her parents.  As a result, he then responds with a long justification, based on how hard he has been working and why they should go to the beach.  They both end up angry and in an argument without understanding why.  This is only one simplified small example of the many ways communication gets messed up.

Enter two more givens in human communication:  First, we can each only see the world through the lens of our own internal maps which we develop through our unique experience and attachment patterns.  We need these maps to understand the world and to give us a sense of continuity through time.  Since everyone has his or her own unique maps (with some degree of consensual reality) all our interactions are subjective and interpreted differently by each other.  Second, all speech is marked by an implicit, non-verbal message about how we want our verbal message to be heard.   These metacommunications regarding how we want our content to be taken are often what the argument is about (as in the above example).   When the content of what is said is in-congruent with the implicit non-verbal message, communication breaks down and the fight is on.   For another example, consider the husband who withdraws as a way of fighting, and the wife who nags in order to make contact, and the implicit power struggle that can occur while the content of what each is saying remains about a neutral subject.  For example:  a wife says to her husband “”Why can’t we just talk for a few minutes?”  There is irritation in her voice with a tinge of helpless complaining.  He responds with “Why do you have to ask me when we’re in the middle of watching something (on TV)?”  There is a lot going on in this brief communication that has very little to do with the question about why they can’t talk for a few minutes (which may be a very good question worth considering).  Neither does the conversation have anything to do with why she is asking him at a time when they are watching TV (which may be another good question worth discussing).  The wife’s feelings of helplessness, frustration, desire for emotional contact, and others feelings go unacknowledged and unrecognized by both participants.  The husband’s feelings of fear of intrusion and or intimacy, frustration, fear of loss of autonomy, interest in watching the TV show also go unacknowledged and unrecognized.  Both participants are isolated with their individual painful feelings and no way of discussing them or resolving the impending impasse.  This short and seemingly simple interaction can represent a destructive impasse in communication that has the potential of ending the relationship.  The non-verbal communication (voice tone and what isn’t said) indicates the depth of the power struggle that can’t be discussed.   Both partners are afraid of what would happen if they attempted to be open and honest in trying to resolve the impasse.  Doing so would take effort from both partners in trusting each other with attempts to be open and honest.  Both would have to want to make the relationship better by clarifying and acknowledging each other’s feelings.  This example is one in which the communication cycle has evolved to an impasse.  We can avoid such impasses if we can develop our capacity to understand what we are communicating and to understand others’ experience of us as we are.

So how can we tell what is being communicated as we are talking?  The short answer is we can’t fully understand it all.  But there are clues and things we can do to learn more about what is going on in an interaction.   This is the essence of this piece.  First of all, when we are authentic, that is when we can be open, honest, and congruent with our thoughts, feelings, and motives, it invites others with whom we are speaking to also be open, honest, and congruent in response.  Of course, this is only an ideal that isn’t always possible and may not even be advisable in some relationships.   In close relationships, attempts at such openness and honesty tend to deepen the relationship and facilitate the communication.   Another thing we can do to improve communication is investigate the responses we are receiving back from what we say and how we are.  There are many avenues of such investigation:  We can ask.  We can watch and listen to responses.  We can notice our own feelings during the discussion since they will tell a lot about the implicit communication that is happening.   This takes a good ability to recognize and understand our own feelings.   It takes courage to be open and honest and to investigate other’s experience of us.  It also takes self acceptance and compassion.    If you have not experienced much acceptance of your emotional states, you may have difficulty finding the necessary self-acceptance to do this.  If you are not familiar with this endeavor, I encourage you to try it.   You may be surprised at how much there is to learn both about yourself and about how others are relating to you.   

I hope this has been thought provoking, if not useful.  I am interested in reading your reactions.

Michael Gray