Much of the meaning we ascribe to others comes down to how we read their intentions. We judge what is happening and what significance it carries by assessing the intentions we believe others hold. Reading these intentions of others allows us to make quick sense of what they are saying and doing without the need for continual clarification.
I've learned that it's possible to avoid negative terms like "not a put-down" and "not advocate".
Whatever I'm saying _is_ something and I should communicate that message instead of an "is not" message.
For example "not a put-down" could be "what I'm seeing could be construed as...and I don't think that was your intention" "not advocate" could be "I'm need to understand your position better".
“I mean this as a compliment.” - whatever "this" was should've been stated so it's clear it was a compliment.
Conversations are about learning and communicating something so whatever you say needs to go somewhere.
The weakness of negative statements is that they exclude certain things while leaving the field wide open for other interpretations which isn't helpful. That they tend to be badly received isn't helpful either.
Positive statements narrows the scope to specifics, exclude everything else without being negative, and are highly instructive.
"I'm going to play devil's advocate here for a moment" - I wouldn't consider this a negative. All ideas have strengths and weaknesses and looking for weaknesses in an idea is completely appropriate as long as its done in a constructive manner - "This idea would be great for X, how would we use it to handle difficult situation Y?" "What objections would this approach raise and how would we mitigate them?"
"I'm just thinking this through" is fine as it is if that's what you're doing. "Even though it may sound like I'm advocating for a position" is a defensive assertion against a complaint nobody may have, so why raise it? Instead talk about what is clear and what you're trying to clarify. People love to be helpful so telling them "I don't understand this part" gives them an opening to do so.
If someone was trying to put the above routine into practice, they might still feel the need to clarify the intentions even with a statement like "I don't understand this part"
There are still plenty of ways to flag the intent of "I don't understand this part"
You're advice is to flag the intent with a positive instead of a negative, right?
Correct - my advice is to make declarations of intention with positive statements. All except the last example in this article risk giving the impression the statement is purportedly trying to disclaim.
I don't hide intent. More like, I just assume that my close contacts know me enough to understand my intent. Plus it can sometimes feel condescending to always state intent.
Most of the time assuming intent is known works fine. But after reading your post, it would def improve my communications to explicitly state intent more often.
Very good article here imo. It's the mirror side of a conversation I've been having with a lot of clients. I'm encouraging people to not be so certain of these "perceived motives & Intentions". Spending energy on concluding what others intend (their motive) is a chasing of the wind imo. We can never really know if we are right. However, it is very human to be occupied with this activity. (& we somehow conclude with a great deal of certainty). It is better to spend energy determining what someone needs and whether I have a desire &/or ability to meet that need. The practice recommended in this article though, accepts that it is human nature to assess & tries to ease those fearful tendencies in others by stating clearly what our intentions are. It is a great back up plan until we all live in a state of compassion for others. Thanks again for sharing these gold nuggets on the daily.
It is chasing the wind... but boy that defense mechanism is strong.
Fear of losing status, fear of looking dumb...
I've had a leader or two who liked the idea of making people squirm by never letting their intentions be obvious. It was their subtle way of keeping in control of an abusive hierarchy.
Perhaps it was “their subtle way of keeping in control of an abusive hierarchy”. I had not considered that. I only knew I could never feel as connected to them as I desired.
I've learned that it's possible to avoid negative terms like "not a put-down" and "not advocate".
Whatever I'm saying _is_ something and I should communicate that message instead of an "is not" message.
For example "not a put-down" could be "what I'm seeing could be construed as...and I don't think that was your intention" "not advocate" could be "I'm need to understand your position better".
“I mean this as a compliment.” - whatever "this" was should've been stated so it's clear it was a compliment.
Tim - when you're trying to express your neutrality in a discussion of an issue do you find the best phrasing would be to use the negative expression?
"I'm going to play devil's advocate here for a moment"
"I'm still just thinking this through even though it might sounds like I'm advocating for a position"
Your observation seems worth considering as an additional layer to this routine.
Maybe it matters less when the focus of the conversation is on an issue instead of on a person.
Conversations are about learning and communicating something so whatever you say needs to go somewhere.
The weakness of negative statements is that they exclude certain things while leaving the field wide open for other interpretations which isn't helpful. That they tend to be badly received isn't helpful either.
Positive statements narrows the scope to specifics, exclude everything else without being negative, and are highly instructive.
"I'm going to play devil's advocate here for a moment" - I wouldn't consider this a negative. All ideas have strengths and weaknesses and looking for weaknesses in an idea is completely appropriate as long as its done in a constructive manner - "This idea would be great for X, how would we use it to handle difficult situation Y?" "What objections would this approach raise and how would we mitigate them?"
"I'm just thinking this through" is fine as it is if that's what you're doing. "Even though it may sound like I'm advocating for a position" is a defensive assertion against a complaint nobody may have, so why raise it? Instead talk about what is clear and what you're trying to clarify. People love to be helpful so telling them "I don't understand this part" gives them an opening to do so.
If someone was trying to put the above routine into practice, they might still feel the need to clarify the intentions even with a statement like "I don't understand this part"
There are still plenty of ways to flag the intent of "I don't understand this part"
You're advice is to flag the intent with a positive instead of a negative, right?
Correct - my advice is to make declarations of intention with positive statements. All except the last example in this article risk giving the impression the statement is purportedly trying to disclaim.
This is really solid. I like it a lot. I'm going to have to be more intentional about using this method
Glad you found value in it!
Are you naturally prone to hide your intent for effect?
I don't hide intent. More like, I just assume that my close contacts know me enough to understand my intent. Plus it can sometimes feel condescending to always state intent.
Most of the time assuming intent is known works fine. But after reading your post, it would def improve my communications to explicitly state intent more often.
Very good article here imo. It's the mirror side of a conversation I've been having with a lot of clients. I'm encouraging people to not be so certain of these "perceived motives & Intentions". Spending energy on concluding what others intend (their motive) is a chasing of the wind imo. We can never really know if we are right. However, it is very human to be occupied with this activity. (& we somehow conclude with a great deal of certainty). It is better to spend energy determining what someone needs and whether I have a desire &/or ability to meet that need. The practice recommended in this article though, accepts that it is human nature to assess & tries to ease those fearful tendencies in others by stating clearly what our intentions are. It is a great back up plan until we all live in a state of compassion for others. Thanks again for sharing these gold nuggets on the daily.
It is chasing the wind... but boy that defense mechanism is strong.
Fear of losing status, fear of looking dumb...
I've had a leader or two who liked the idea of making people squirm by never letting their intentions be obvious. It was their subtle way of keeping in control of an abusive hierarchy.
Perhaps it was “their subtle way of keeping in control of an abusive hierarchy”. I had not considered that. I only knew I could never feel as connected to them as I desired.