Everyday we meet people, especially at a managerial level, who say lots of nonsense. Even the most stupid cow would think is cleverer compared to them. Those people can throw us off balance and we can’t say anything. It leads us to have doubts about ourselves. We start to doubt our statements and seek our imperfections. This a description of meeting with an ignorant.
The second type of a situation which fits the book is: You meet a person. The person lets you interrupt him/her. The person can’t lead a lively discussion. It makes you mad.
These are the two cases in which the book How to talk to ignorants by Peter Modler is useful. The original name is Mit Ignoranten sprechen. Unfortunately it seems the book hasn’t been translated into English.
I appreciate the book for explaining two communication planes and three levels of communication. The books explains quite clearly in examples when you encounter such planes and levels. It gives you hints how to disclose such harmful communication and how to communicate effectively after that.
There are two communication planes in existence. The first one is vertical (hierarchical). People who communicate in the vertical plane are hierarchically and territorially oriented. It is not possible to start a conversation with them in a factual way. At first they have to make clear what their position in the hierarchy is and which territory belongs to them. When you, horizontally-oriented communicator, start arguing with hierarchically-oriented individuals (I mean arguing from your point of view.) The hierarchically-oriented people won’t take it as arguing or your weakness. They will perceive you as somebody who they can value. Then you can transition to a proper factual discussion.
They don’t mind that a meeting hits the wall and nothing is dealt with.
The opposite of the hierarchical communication is vertical communication. People who communicate this way like proper objective factual discussions. They like to reach a consensus. The thing which they like the least is not being taken seriously. In addition they don’t understand the hierarchical communication. When the vertical person meets the hierarchical one, they will think that they (hierarchical people) are ignorants.
A typical example is from a company meeting. You are a woman who knows her subject-matter very well. You are presenting results of your department. There is a person in the conference room who distracts the rest. Then the person, a man, says: “The figures in your presentation are nonsense.” You start apologising and explaining how you acquired the figures. He replies again: “The figures in your presentation are nonsense.” It lowers you morale and you actually start to think that he knows more that you do. No he does not. He plays a hierarchical communication game.
Moreover the book describes three levels of communication:
- High talk,
- Basis talk,
- Move talk.
The high talk is how university-educated people speak. They like to use factual and objective arguments and like to reach a consensus in a discussion. The only way they know is an academic way of speaking.
The basic talk is a level of communication where facts and truth are not important anymore. The communication shifts to stupid statements and personal allusions (hints).
The examples are:
- “You’re saying nonsense,”
- “You aren’t a special case here mate…,”
- “It looks like you didn’t sleep well, you hair is horrible.”
The lowest level is the move talk. Gestures and mimics are important at this level. It lowers morale of a high-talk counterpart. The typical example is rolling you eyes, shaking your head and so on.
The book describes that if a discussion shifts from the factual level (high talk) to the non-factual one (basic talk), it’s not possible to use strong high-talk arguments, but arguments of the same level.
The mentioned forms of communication are extensively described in the book. They will help you to get an insight in secrets of misunderstandings among people who talk in different planes and by different levels.
What I missed is more practical advice and exercises to practise prompt reactions. There is also too much Trump, Hillary Clinton and some Horsts from Germany who are really loud in the parliament. Trump is depicted as the best example of a hierarchically (vertically) oriented speaker who uses gestures and the basic talk the most.
In this way it helps to immortalize the picture of the former American president with a hairdo of a Golden pleasant. However, the Golden pheasant shouldn’t stand in front of a microphone but shall be hidden at a place where nobody hears him.
Nevertheless, the amount of Trump in the book isn’t as high as in a book Talking to Strangers by Malcolm Gladwell. Unfortunately this book has more feces in it than a cesspit which hasn’t been cleaned for a long time.
I recommend this book to buy.
