Author: chriscol

Are you tired of being verbal cannon-fodder for Karl Rove? Would you like to learn defensive skills from a virtual Jedi Master?

The master is Suzette Haden Elgin and the Force is called The Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense.  The concepts and framework are hers; the commentary is mine.

To begin:
Four principles, Five modes, and one defensive Rule.
Four Principles:
1) Know that you are under attack.
  (It took us awhile, but I think most of us have finally figured it out.)

2. Know what kind of attack you are facing. (Weapons used, strength of opponent, skill level of opponent.)  
3. Know how to fit your defense to the attack. (Don’t over-respond or under-respond. Use the right weapons. Use exactly enough force to be effective.)
4. Once you have decided to respond, know how to follow through.

Elgin is writing for family and work situations–where you want to defuse and deflect an attack, but NOT maim the attacker.  Her work needs a bit of retuning to match the current political attacks–but the frame and the engine are sound.

Looking back at the past few years, we have seen how long it took Dems to wake up to the fact that they were under attack.  Then, it took even longer to understand the kind of attack.  (Think Kerry vs Swift-Boat Liars).  Later, during the debates, we all noticed times when we felt that Kerry answered fire with toothpaste. At last, we are finally seeing Reid, Conyers, Boxer and Dean score points as they finally master the follow-through.

Five Modes:
Elgin calls these the “Satir modes”, named for the therapist who identified these 5 common behavior patterns.  Here they are, with a sample phrase to help you recognize the first three:

1. The Placater: “I don’t care; whatever you’d like.”
2. The Blamer: “You never consider my needs.”
3. The Computer:  “There is undoubtedly a simple solution to this.”
4. The Distracter: panicky, random channel-flipping among the first three.
5. Leveling: Straight-forward Truth — or bare-faced Lie.  

Elgin compares these five modes to the stance of the gladiator.  They are a way of positioning oneself in the verbal sparring contest.  Different people will feel different degrees of comfort in the various modes.

We need to be aware that these modes also indicate something to your partners in the dance.

The Placater is a self-identified doormat.
The Blamer is the bully stepping on that doormat.

These two have a well-defined dance.

The Computer is emotionally neutral. For that reason, its defensive and offensive potential is often underestimated. It tends to use technical terms and complicated phrasing. It avoids direct personal remarks in favor of broad generalizations. Learn it well, Young Jedi.

The Distracter cannot attack alone, but can often blind an intended victim to a real attack coming from a different direction.  Distracting is rarely part of an effective defense.

Honest Leveling is never an attack.  It can be confused with an attack, however. The honest leveler is very reality based, and will not hesitate to bring up problems.  

Unfortunately, Leveling mode can also be used to deliver lies.  This is one of the dirtiest possible kinds of offense.

Your assignment until the next diary: Hone your awareness and practice identifying the 5 modes.  

Post comments that illustrate the themes in this diary, and post questions when you are not sure what you have seen.

And for your own protection, rule 1:

If you feel under verbal attack and don’t know what to do, SWITCH TO COMPUTER MODE AND STAY THERE.

Most flame wars are triggered and fueled by what Elgin calls a ‘reality gap’. All of us need to learn better ways to build bridges across those gaps.

Verbal Self-Defense is a bit like judo. It can be used to fight, or it can be more like a formal dance, where the goal is exercise and fun, but not “victory”.

If you get mad, however, you’re toast. Let your anger signal you that a problem exists, but before you speak, do a reality-check.

Tools and techniques after the fold…
George Miller’s Law:  
In order to understand what someone is saying, you need to

1. assume that it is true, and
2. try to imagine what it could be true OF.

Semantics are more important that we realize:
Two or more people can take a word and give it attributes that further define it–and then check to see whether both of them agree on the attributes.

For example, most people might agree on the following basic ideas for “Failure”:

• +negative (it’s bad)
• -concrete (it’s abstract, you can’t touch it)
• +goal not reached
• ?final (well, just how final is it?)

The next three examples typically cause friction between men and women. I can’t speak for men’s viewpoint, but I recall heavy social pressure while I was going up to internalize the  women’s definitions.

violence
Men | Women
+force | +force
+intense | +intense
+deliberate | +deliberate
+negative | +negative
+avoidable | +harmful

opponent  
Men | Women
+other    | +enemy

cooperation
Men | Women
+do your assigned part | +do whatever you see that needs doing

(This last one is a big culprit when it comes to “helping around the house” disagreements.)

Primary metaphor/frame for task-oriented interactions:

Big gender split here:
Men:  Games
Women: School/learning lab

All of us know that learning a second language after age 10 or so is much harder than learning it while younger. The ear is less attuned to the new sounds, and the phrasing is always a bit awkward.  For example, the German word Gift means “poison”. Now, imagine the very first instinctive reaction of a German exchange student to a buoyant “Close your eyes…. Hold out your hands…. I brought you a gift!”

It isn’t that men and women can’t learn each other’s definitions. But because the words are the same as words that they learned as small children–but the meanings of those words are not quite the same–they essentially have to make the same kinds of mental corrections as our young German friend.

I’m pretty sure that lots of men have not-so-happy memories of school–they’d be happier with those memories not being triggered.

Unfortunately, because women assign different attributes to Games, using the Games metaphor brings up some major Reality Gaps between the sexes.

For men: if it involves negotiation, and is not life-or-death, it is a game.

For women, a game is
+activity
+governed by rules
-important
-serious

As soon as a game metaphor surfaces, so does the Reality Gap. Over and over again.

A woman’s native reaction to men using a game metaphor is “Come on, guys, get serious!”  Alternately, she may realize that they are serious and keep losing her awareness of the game-like aspects that still hold. Many women have learned to “play the game”–but it is always learned later in life, as a second language.

And, not surprisingly, Time Out has different meanings in the First Language, as well:

Men–football (short break before returning to the fray)
Women–siblings (cool off and don’t resume fighting at all)

To see just how crucial this sort of thing can be, Elgin presented a business example.  With a few minor changes, it could have been used to avert most of the pie wars. But to pull it off, one of our women, already under stress, would have had to shift into her second language frame.

Elgin’s example:

In light of this information–do you see parts of the pie fight differently now?

Are there other times here at dKos when this sort of information might be helpful?