In this video, we'll discuss the key points from Patrick King's book

"How to Speak Effectively: Influence, Engage, & Charm" (How to be

More Likable and Charismatic Book 29). This book is a comprehensive

guide to improving your communication skills and making a lasting

impression on others.

Hear it Here - https://adbl.co/3N9lsjI

00:00:00 How to Speak Effectively

00:06:51 How To Use The Ladder In Your Own Life.

00:28:30 Chunking - Adjusting The Zoom Button.

00:42:58 Think Before You Speak.

We'll cover topics such as:

The Ladder of Inference: Using this framework to understand your assumptions and biases.

How to Use the Ladder in Your Own Life: Practical tips for applying the Ladder of Inference to your daily interactions.

Framing: How to present your ideas in a persuasive and engaging way.

Chunking: How to break down complex information into smaller, more manageable chunks.

Conversational Extremists: The Nitpicker and The Philosopher: How to deal with these two common conversational partners.

Think Before You Speak: The importance of pausing and considering your words before you speak.

Understanding "Clean Communication": What it is and how to achieve it.

How to Speak Effectively:

Influence,

Engage,

& Charm (How to be More Likable and Charismatic Book 29)

Written by

Patrick King, narrated by russell newton.

In the chapter that follows,

we’re going to look closely at

exactly what makes communication

effective ...and what makes it

miscommunication.

We’ll consider the importance of

understanding the other person’s

frame of reference,

how to frame your own position,

what “chunking” is and how to use

it,

and how to adjust your mindset so you

become a conscious,

clean communicator.

But first,

what is miscommunication?

Have you ever been speaking with

someone,

feeling as though you are “reaching

them,” when all of a sudden,

they say something that lets you know

that you are both on completely

different wavelengths?

It can be a disorienting and

frustrating experience,

but miscommunication happens for a

reason—and it can be avoided.

Poor communication arises as a result

of a mismatch of perspectives,

approach,

or conversational skill.

Being an effective communicator means

appreciating that the complicated

process of communication doesn’t

happen by accident.

To avoid misunderstandings you need to

consciously and actively take charge of

the process—and this is especially

true when your message is subtle,

nuanced,

or very abstract.

If you examine any moment of

miscommunication clearly,

you’ll see that understanding breaks

down for a few reasons -

•One or both of you has failed to

understand how the other is viewing

things.

•Faulty assumptions have been made,

or someone has jumped to conclusions.

In 1974,

business professor Chris Argyris

created a handy tool for better

communication,

which he called "the ladder of

inference" (sometimes called "the

ladder of inquiry").

The ladder is a metaphor for the way

people think whenever they are given

new information.

It’s about how new data and

information is processed.

What’s useful about his metaphor is

that it reminds us in a simple way that

different people tend to process

information in different ways.

If we are unaware that this is

happening,

we can talk at cross-purposes—and

miscommunication arises.

Before we look at the ladder,

let’s consider an example.

Imagine a couple working together on a

household budget.

Jamie is looking back at the past six

months and trying to find out where

they overspent and why.

Alex is looking ahead to the next six

months and trying to figure out what

kind of summer vacation they can afford.

They end up having an enormous

argument,

with Jamie thinking that Alex is not

taking money concerns seriously,

or taking responsibility for

overspending,

whereas Alex cannot see why Jamie is

stuck on what is in the past and cannot

be changed.

They both find themselves saying

“I’m just trying to get a handle on

our financial situation!” and yet

mysteriously they also both feel that

the other one is getting in the way.

What’s happened here?

According to Argyris,

communication has broken down,

and it’s because Jamie and Alex are

on different rungs of the ladder of

inference.

If you’ve ever experienced a

communication breakdown of this kind,

you’ll know that it can be very

subtle and hard to pinpoint.

Often,

we are only actually aware of our

assumptions,

expectations,

and frames of reference when they

conflict with someone else’s!

But this is where the ladder comes in.

It looks as follows.

Imagine a ladder with each rung getting

gradually smaller from bottom to top - .

ACTIONS. .

BELIEFS. .

CONCLUSIONS. .

ASSUMPTIONS. .

MEANINGS. .

SELECTED DATA. .

OBSERVATIONS. .

Now imagine that this ladder is

standing in a big puddle of water,

which we’ll call the POOL OF

OBSERVATIONS. .

This pool contains all the possible

observations we can make about the

world—theoretically,

there are infinite possibilities.

The next rung up is OBSERVATIONS.

These are all the observations that you

select from the candidates of potential.

We’ll look at what causes you to

select some observations and not others

in just a moment.

The next rung is about the pieces of

information you further select from

these selected observations,

SELECTED DATA. .i.e.,

it’s a subset.

You’re further narrowing down the

data you are focusing on.

The next rung is MEANING,

which is the significance you attach to

these selected observations.

The next rung,

ASSUMPTIONS. . is what you do with

this meaning.

You extrapolate or make assumptions

based on the meaning you’ve extracted

from the observations.

On the next rung you come to

CONCLUSIONS. .to make sense about what

this all amounts to,

and finally,

these conclusions inform your BELIEFS.

.about the world and your place in it.

Consequently,

every ACTION you take,

the last rung,

is informed by this long chain of

inferences and meaning making.

Furthermore,

the ladder doesn’t just go one way.

Once you make meaning and take an

action in accordance with those

beliefs,

then those beliefs actually tend to

affect the data you are likely to

select next time round on the SELECTED

DATA. .rung.

Can you see where this is going?

There are two potential problems - 1.

Though everyone may begin in the same

puddle of potential observations,

each person ends up constructing their

own unique ladder from those

observations all the way up to the

actions they take.

If those ladders lead to completely

different assumptions,

meanings,

beliefs,

and ultimately actions,

then conflict can arise.

2.

Conflict can also occur,

as we saw with Jamie and Alex,

when two people are on different rungs

and trying to talk with one another

from different positions.

In our example,

Jamie is on the SELECTED DATA. .and

MEANING rungs,

trying to understand what went wrong

and piece it all together (and,

honestly,

assign blame ...).

Alex,

however,

is on the BELIEFS. .or ACTIONS.

.rung,

and is already looking for ways to move

on from the fact that they overspent.

It may be,

however,

that even if Jamie and Alex were on the

same rung,

they may disagree on what meanings to

ascribe to observations,

and what beliefs and actions to take as

a result.

However,

good communication doesn’t

necessarily mean agreement—it means

understanding.

Jamie and Alex can have a fruitful,

productive conversation even though

they ultimately disagree.

At the same time,

they can have an argument even when

they both want the same thing and

essentially agree!

How To Use The Ladder In Your Own Life.

The ladder is an excellent way to

identify,

defuse,

and resolve conflict.

It’s a way to shed light on

misunderstandings and get everyone

moving forward again.

If you find yourself in a situation

where you or others are “talking past

one another,” then this is your

signal that communication is going to

break down—or already has.

The first thing to do is check which

rung each speaker is on.

If the person you’re talking to has

an objection that comes from a rung

lower than yours,

it needs to be addressed first before

moving on.

Your discussion should focus on

bringing you both up the ladder

together.

For example,

if Alex identifies that Jamie is on a

lower rung,

then the objections made start to make

more sense.

Alex can now address them.

Jamie - “You’re not listening.

We spent five hundred dollars more last

month on eating out than we said we

would.

That’s a big deal!"

Alex - “Okay,

it seems like you’re really worried

about how much we overspent.

I agree with you,

it’s a lot.

Why do you think it happened?"

(Here,

Alex is asking Jamie to move to the

next rung,

MEANING. )

Jamie - “Well,

we were careless,

that’s all.

We weren’t paying attention."

Alex - “I agree.

It crept up on us.

Now I’m sure you’ll agree with me,

though,

that there’s nothing we can do about

it now.

And if we want to do better next time

round,

we need to start looking at the future."

(Now,

to the next rung—can you see the two

ASSUMPTIONS. .made?)

Jamie - “Yes,

okay.

Let’s do that."

Alex - “Unless we make some changes,

we’re going to be in big trouble (

CONCLUSIONS-ellipses.- Now I know

money’s tight,

but I still believe that going on

vacations is very important,

and I don’t want to suddenly stop

doing everything we enjoy (

BELIEFS-ellipses.- So I think moving

forward,

I want to figure out some smart ways we

can still do the things we love without

spending too much money ( ACTIONS...”

Jamie - “Yes,

that makes a lot of sense.

I want to do that too."

Now,

there is no more disagreement in which

Jamie keeps reiterating how bad they

were to overspend,

while Alex feels guilty for planning

vacations.

They’re communicating again.

Granted,

in this example,

we’ve kept things very simple and

straightforward;

in real life,

each of these “rungs” may take a

long time,

perhaps even days.

And though in our example Alex very

neatly “leads” Jamie,

in reality this process would be a lot

more subtle,

complex,

and collaborative.

There may well be disagreement or

compromise.

But ultimately communication is

improved because people are reasoning

together,

rather than at cross-purposes.

The ladder can also be useful any time

you are trying to get someone to

understand your own actions,

or proposed actions.

Whenever you want to “bring someone

around” to your point of view,

don’t start with the top of the

ladder—bring them along with you and

take each step of the ladder at a time

so they can see how the inferences and

assumptions of your argument gradually

build on one another.

It’s true that someone understanding

your thought process doesn’t

necessarily have to agree with you

afterward.

The good thing is that if you use the

ladder technique,

you will almost always avoid

misunderstandings and miscommunication,

and you will give yourself the best

chance of actually being heard.

Another great thing about the ladder is

that it shows you that the process of

thinking contains many separate,

sequential components—and skipping

one can sometimes lead to sloppy

thinking and,

of course,

miscommunication.

It can be useful sometimes to use the

ladder to slow down and examine your

own thought processes.

Try working backward almost

“forensically” - 1.

What beliefs have inspired your actions?

2.

What conclusions do you have about a

situation,

yourself,

others,

or the world that informed those

beliefs?

3.

What assumptions are you making?

(A great question is to ask whether you

really have much evidence for them,

and investigate what changes if you

make different assumptions or none at

all).

4.

What meaning are you ascribing to your

experiences?

5.

What are you focusing on?

What data are you selecting from your

environment to act on—or else,

what information have you discounted,

ignored,

or forgotten about?

6.

Finally,

can you look once more with fresh eyes

at the observations around you?

For a moment,

can you do this without any

interpretation?

Asking these questions can reveal

interesting ways that our own thinking

has gone astray,

and if we can get a better

understanding of that,

we instantly become better

communicators.

After all,

how can we expect clear and conscious

communication with others when we

ourselves are unclear on our

motivations,

expectations,

and the meaning we ascribe to any

situation?

The ladder can be used formally or

informally,

and for big complex chunks of data as

well as more simple information.

It is highly adjustable,

but its strength is that it forces you

to look at things you might have taken

for granted.

For example,

you might use the framework in a

meeting you are leading.

If you understand the meeting as an

exercise in getting everyone to

“think together,” then you can

structure the meeting so that it moves

deliberately from one rung to the other.

This gives you time to iron out

objections or confusions rather than

rushing ahead to the higher rungs and

risking a full-on conflict.

A few further key insights as you use

the ladder in your own communication -

Nobody is “wrong."

The ladder is not there to help you

find out who is to blame!

Also,

the person who is higher on the ladder

isn’t necessarily faster,

more intelligent,

more correct,

or more motivated.

As we’ve seen,

misunderstandings usually arise because

of mismatch—that doesn’t mean that

there has to be a good guy and a bad

guy.

It just means something is not aligning.

Switch focus from content to process.

Too many arguments are sustained

because people are distracted by the

content of what is being said—but

usually the problem is the way it’s

being said,

and the reasoning behind that.

As you talk to someone,

become tuned in to the way they are

thinking—and the way you are thinking!

Keep your ego out of it.

Disagreement and conflict have a way of

activating our defenses and making us

wrongly believe that we are the model

of good reasoning,

and everyone else is mistaken,

stupid,

crazy,

wrong,

bad,

etc.

But slow down and consider your

reasoning,

their reasoning,

and the way the two are interacting.

Remember that you are not just applying

the ladder analysis to them,

but to yourself as well.

You might feel like you want to stand

on the top of your own ladder and yell

your opinion to all who will hear it,

but this is just ego talking and will

get you nowhere.

Ask questions.

Finally,

one way to become a better communicator

is to actively engage them in the

process of examining the underlying

reasoning behind action and opinion.

Ask with genuine curiosity.

Why do they think X. Y. Z. ?

What facts do they know,

and what do those facts mean to them?

Why?

How?

To conclude,

most of us experience the objective

world subjectively and selectively.

We focus on specific facts only,

interpret what those facts mean based

on certain assumptions,

come to conclusions based on these

assumptions,

allow these conclusions to shape our

beliefs,

and then let these beliefs guide our

action ...as well as determine what

facts we focus on in the future.

This process can be an opportunity to

create a strong,

effective,

and healthy way of looking at the

world,

or it can become an unconscious echo

chamber that ends up amplifying and

replicating the same errors again and

again.

Framing.

If you’re like most people,

you listen to respond.

You’re reactive.

You let conversations go whichever way

they go.

But good communicators approach things

a little differently.

They are more likely to proactively set

the frame for a conversation.

What is a “frame”?

It’s simply the way you position your

line of thinking by your particular

choice of words and expression.

It’s the kind of thing that will

appear to be everywhere once you know

to look for it.

It’s how we develop our arguments,

“lead” our listeners along paths of

reasoning and inference,

and deliberately use language for a

special purpose we have chosen.

Consider the following speech made by

Barack Obama at the 2004 Democratic

National Convention - “There’s not

a liberal America and a conservative

America;

there’s the United States of America.

There’s not a Black America and white

America and Latino America and Asian

America;

there’s the United States of America

... We are one people,

all of us pledging allegiance to the

stars and stripes,

all of us defending the United States

of America.

In the end,

that’s what this election is about.

Do we participate in a politics of

cynicism,

or do we participate in a politics of

hope?"

Notice how he has structured his

speech—notice the frame by which he

is delivering his message.

He did not simply stand up on the stage

and announce - “It’s important for

us to remember who we are as

Americans” or even “it’s time

there was an African American

president,

and I’ll give you some reasons why."

Rather,

he took seventeen long minutes to lead

the audience to this conclusion

themselves.

Note in the above that he asks a

rhetorical question,

to which the only answer can be “we

participate in a politics of hope."

Notice the rhythm and repetition in the

way he lays out the artificial

differences between different types of

Americans,

then leads to his conclusion - “we

are one people."

Obama (and indeed anyone delivering a

persuasive speech of this kind)

succeeds not because he effectively

shows people what he thinks,

but because he constructs a compelling

frame in which to communicate that

message.

His listeners,

then,

go a step further from understanding

and are stirred up enough to be

inspired by him and agree with what he

says.

When the frame of a conversation

changes,

everything changes.

Everything takes on a different meaning.

Therefore,

it’s simply not something we can

leave to chance.

Obama,

of course,

would have had this speech carefully

written by experts,

and he may well have rehearsed it for

hours.

Obama was known as a powerful and

persuasive speaker,

and it’s in big part due to his

understanding of how to frame himself

and his message.

George Lakoff is an author and

professor of cognitive science and

linguistics.

In his book Don’t Think of an

Elephant!,

he explains how talking to people’s

frames is a powerful way of having them

really hear you,

saying that we mistakenly think that,

“if we just tell people the facts,

since people are basically rational

beings,

they’ll all reach the right

conclusions.

But we know from cognitive science that

people do not think like that.

People think in frames ...to be

accepted,

the truth must fit people’s frames.

If the facts do not fit a frame,

the frame stays and the facts bounce

off.

Why?

Neuroscience tells us that each of the

concepts we have—the long-term

concepts that structure how we

think—is instituted in the synapses

of our brains.

Concepts are not things that can be

changed just by someone telling us a

fact.

We may be presented with facts,

but for us to make sense of them,

they have to fit what is already in the

synapses of the brain.

Otherwise,

facts go in and then they go right back

out.

They are not heard,

or they are not accepted as facts,

or they mystify us - “Why would

anyone have said that?"

Then we label the fact as irrational,

crazy,

or stupid."

So,

a frame is the way we work with

pre-existing concepts to ensure that

the message we’re sharing has the

highest chance of being received.

Interestingly,

it’s also why Lakoff recommends

resisting the frame of someone you’re

pushing against by refusing to use

their language.

This is because it is language that

builds the frame—and if someone is

not working in your interests,

then the frame they choose will not be

the frame you want.

In Obama’s case,

framing is used to persuade.

But frames can have other uses and are

especially helpful in navigating

difficult,

uncomfortable,

or emotionally charged conflicts.

Maybe the other person just refuses to

listen or believe you.

Maybe you both keep saying the same

things over and over,

and it’s escalating.

What’s the solution?

According to Lakoff,

you both need to find a way to get into

the same frame.

As a good communicator,

it’s your job to find out what story

you could tell that will resonate with

the other person.

Remember—it’s not about facts.

It’s about all the many different

ways to look at those facts,

and what that means for two people who

find themselves in a conversation about

them.

Here are a few things to keep in mind -

1.

Make sure that,

as far as possible,

you begin every conversation with a

good idea of where you want it to go.

Be proactive.

2.

What is your frame?

Your source of truth?

The framework you’re embedded in?

Really own this—it will help you find

the metaphors and stories that will

help you express your position.

3.

Get the other person to see into this

frame of yours by asking them questions.

You want them to agree.

Be careful and avoid using their story

or their words.

4.

Deliberately engineer the structure of

your story so that it leads toward the

kind of solutions you want.

It’s about focus.

Reading the above,

you may think that setting a

conversational frame may be a little

manipulative.

Isn’t thinking in this way precisely

the thing that leads to stubborn

standoffs in conversations?

Well,

yes and no.

The truth is,

we are all using frames all the time.

It’s just a question of whether

we’re consciously aware of it,

how those frames work,

to what end,

and in service of whom and what.

Being a good communicator means

understanding all this and proactively

taking charge.

This is more often than not a win-win

scenario.

Let’s look at an example.

Imagine a potential client is

interested but has concerns about the

price you’re charging.

What you don’t want to do in this

case is bombard them with facts (you

might call them “reasons”)

to change their mind.

It won’t work.

What you need to do is consider the

best frame for the case you want to

make.

And to do that,

you need to understand the frame

they’re already in,

the nature of their objections and

fears,

and what exactly it is you’re asking

them to do.

This might allow you to realize that

the person is hesitant because they are

unsure of the real value of what

you’re offering.

They are very,

very tired of being aggressively

marketed to and just want something

that works.

So you say that they’re right—it is

expensive.

There are people who don’t buy

because it’s not in their budget,

and that’s okay.

But you do have many satisfied clients

who,

having taken the leap,

are now really glad they did—and

you’d be happy to put them in touch.

Otherwise,

you totally respect their decision

either way,

and they know where to find you if they

change their mind.

Can you feel the frame?

Can you see how this response actually

pulls the potential client into that

frame with you?

There is nothing in it for the person

to push against—and a lot to agree

with.

As Dwight D. Eisenhower said,

“Motivation is the art of getting

people to do what you want them to do

because they want to do it.” In this

example,

you are using a frame that gives you

the best chance of actually reaching

this prospective client and getting

them to behave in the way you want them

to behave.

In the same way,

a frame can change anything.

It can turn a restriction and a limit

into “safety” and “comfort."

It can position a loss as a gain or a

gain as a loss.

It can appoint an adversary as a

teacher,

and a friend as a saboteur.

The luxury fashion brand Hermes sells a

handbag,

the “Birkin."

But not just anyone can buy the

handbag;

there are only a limited number

available,

and you have to be invited to spend the

roughly fifty thousand dollars to have

one.

The company will only sell to those

they consider worthy,

and in fact don’t even fully

advertise their selection criteria,

and do not display the bag in ordinary

stores.

Their tactics around this item are kept

under a deliberate veil of mystery.

Hermes has completely inverted the

conventional buyer-seller frame and

created their own .- In this frame,

instead of the company marketing

themselves so they are selected by the

consumer,

the consumer fights to be considered a

potential buyer and feels privileged to

cough up the fifty thousand dollars.

Every person you ever communicate with

will have a lifetime of experiences

behind them,

and these have taught them in gradual

increments to adopt certain beliefs and

worldviews (hopefully not too many as

bizarre as Hermes’).

Many of these views will be unconscious.

But that doesn’t stop them from being

strongly influenced by these beliefs,

which seep through and infiltrate

everything they do and say,

as well as everything they’re able to

hear or agree with.

Think again about Obama’s speech.

There would have been many different

people in the crowd that night,

and a lot of them will have possessed

viewpoints and frames that didn’t

match the one Obama was presenting.

For example,

many Democrats who are politically

involved enough to attend conventions

and rallies do tend to think that there

is such a thing as a “liberal America

and a conservative America,

a Black America and white

America”—after all,

they were there to show support for the

democrats,

not the conservatives,

and specifically for Obama himself

precisely because he was a Black

American,

not because his race didn’t matter.

This is the power of framing—it can

so thoroughly change context,

shift meanings,

and create new understandings that it

allows you to not only have a

conversation but steer a conversation.

This steering is so powerful that it

can actually remake meaning entirely

and cause people to completely change

not just their opinions but the way

they arrive at those opinions.

Obama could have framed himself as a

victim or as an angry avenger.

He could have highlighted the frame of

justice,

or the frame of prosperity.

He could,

in essence,

have chosen any frame in the world.

When someone uses their power to frame

and influence in a good way,

we call them leaders and are happy to

be inspired by them.

When their frames dominate and diminish

us,

we call them bullies and tyrants.

Importantly—it’s the same skill!

Reality is fixed ...but the meaning of

reality is dynamic and subject to

change.

It is not absolute but contextual,

not passively received but actively

constructed.

This is where communication takes

place,

and where you have your greatest chance

for making connections,

being heard,

and influencing others.

Chunking .- Adjusting The Zoom Button.

Take a look at this conversation - A

.- Oh,

wow,

so you’re a music teacher!

How long have you been doing that?

B .- Oh,

about ten years now,

at least.

A .- Cool.

And that whole time you taught the

French horn?

B .- Well,

no.

That’s my main instrument,

but I do oboe as well.

A .- Huh.

I’ve heard that the French horn is

really difficult.

B .- Yeah,

it can be.

A lot of my students end up quitting,

sorry to say!

A .- Oh,

yeah?

How long do they stay before they

usually quit?

B .- How long?

Uh ...I’m not sure.

Everyone’s different,

I guess.

I’d say the ones who leave do so

pretty quickly.

But that could be for all sorts of

reasons.

It’s complicated,

I think.

But you know early on whether you love

the instrument or not.

A .- Oh,

totally.

So maybe,

like,

they’d quit after the first lesson?

B .- Uh ...no,

not always.

Sometimes a month?

I don’t know.

A .- Do they ever tell you before they

go or do they just disappear?

And on and on.

What’s your feeling about this

conversation?

Reading it again,

can you spot the point at which is

starts to kind of grind along?

You can almost feel the moment where B

starts to get bored.

Why?

Before we consider the answer,

let’s look at another example - A .-

Oh,

wow,

so you’re a music teacher!

How long have you been doing that?

B .- Oh,

about ten years now,

at least.

A .- Cool.

That’s a long time.

Do you think you’ll always teach?

B .- Well,

I do sometimes wonder.

It’s rewarding,

but ...people’s attitudes to learning

have changed so much over the years,

you know?

A .- I can imagine.

People seem to just have less and less

patience these days.

What do you think’s causing it?

B .- Well,

who knows.

Take your pick,

right?

I mean,

I have some very good students,

so I can’t complain.

A .- Oh,

I’m sure.

Do you think that overall your

students’ motivations are changing

over time?

B .- Hm,

could be.

It’s hard to say.

A .- Do you think that you’ve had to

adapt the way you teach them to

accommodate for how different students

are today compared with ten years ago?

I often feel like we focus too much on

technique in this country,

and so little on the art side.

Do you find that?

Now consider what you think of this

conversation.

It’s completely different,

but somehow something is still not

quite working.

The big problem with both conversations

(other than A asking a barrage of

questions and B being somewhat

unresponsive)

is a question of chunking.

In neuro-linguistic programming,

the word "chunking" is used to describe

the way in which we can group pieces of

information.

We can chunk “up” or “down -” .

Chunking up means to ask questions or

make comments in such a way as to

combine information and make it more

abstract and more general.

It’s the process of looking for

things that are coming,

or “zooming out” to see the

overarching theme,

pattern,

or structure that simplifies all the

smaller details you’re looking at.

So someone gives you a long list of all

the pets they’ve had throughout their

life,

and you chunk up by saying,

“So you’re a real animal lover,

huh?"

Chunking down goes the other way.

It’s when we ask questions or make

comments that move the conversation

from the general and abstract to the

more specific.

Someone says they love animals,

and you ask them,

“Do you have a pet?"

In doing so,

you’re asking for a more specific

instance of the general claim they’ve

just made,

i.e.,

zooming in.

Basically,

chunking is a way to turn the dial on

the level of detail occurring in a

conversation.

Let’s return to our examples above.

In the first example,

Speaker A asks questions that lead to

them zooming in on the idea of students

quitting and exactly when they quit and

why.

It’s as though each question drills

deeper and deeper into this one chosen

thread—perhaps to the boredom of

Speaker B!

The second conversation has a different

problem.

Here,

Speaker A keeps asking questions that

open up the conversation to a more

abstract level.

But in time,

these questions just seem to go nowhere.

They are soon talking about students in

general,

and then all people and their total

lack of patience,

and then the entire system of music

education in the whole

country—there’s a load of sweeping

generalization and broad abstraction.

Again Speaker B is not quite enjoying

this flight into the abstract!

Chunking up questions/phrases/themes

can look like -

•What does that mean?

•Let's look at the big picture ...

•How does that connect to ...?

•Why did all of that happen?

•What pattern is emerging?

Chunking down,

on the other hand,

could sound like -

•What happened next?

•Can you provide a specific detail?

(For example,

what was his name?

How much did it cost?)

•Tell me more about ...

•When did this happen,

and in what order?

Which is better to use—chunking up or

down?

The answer is neither,

because a good conversation contains a

dynamic balance of both of them.

We can zoom in and out to various

levels of detail and abstraction

according to our needs.

(We’ll explore this more in a later

chapter when we look at “funnel

questions.”)

Start at a broad,

general level and work your way down.

This may correspond with more

open-ended questions,

but it doesn’t necessarily have to -

1.

Start with chunking up to define the

“territory” of your conversation,

state the parameters of the problem,

or gently introduce a new conversation

or topic.

2.

Gradually chunk down,

but do not ask more than three chunking

down questions in a row.

Find out things like specific goals,

motivations,

problems,

interpretations,

examples,

etc.

3.

Then zoom out again with another

chunking up question.

Again,

try not to ask more than three of these

in a row.

The point of zooming in and out is to

avoid either extreme .- Get too

abstract and lofty and you risk

creating a stiff,

impersonal,

and vague conversation about nothing

and everything.

On the other hand,

linger too long on chunking down

questions and you can get lost,

stuck,

or distracted by irrelevant details.

A good metaphor is to imagine that you

and your conversation partner are

mutually navigating your way up a

winding mountain path,

using a map.

Sometimes,

you’ll both want to lean in and

engage with the finer details of

exactly where you are—the rocks and

trees and so on.

You’ll focus on this turn or that

turn,

and the one foot in front of the other.

But every once in a while,

you have to consult the map and get a

bigger picture of what you’re doing.

You need to look up and take in the

horizon,

or glance behind you to see how far

you’ve advanced up the mountain and

how much longer you have to go.

You might even take a break and

consider the whole reason for climbing

the mountain in the first place!

In any case,

good mountaineers have both

skills—they pay attention to the

gravel beneath their boots,

but also look up and around them and

engage in the broader task.

The ideal conversation,

then,

would be a comfortable mix of the first

and second of our examples above.

For instance,

instead of continuing to dwell on the

students who quit,

and exactly when they quit and why,

Speaker A could take a metaphorical

step back,

allow the conversation to breathe a

little,

and take the opportunity to chunk up.

Similarly,

three or four chunking up questions

into the second conversation is a good

time to stop talking abstractly and

probe for some specifics.

Conversational Extremist .- The

Nitpicker.

In our examples,

chunking up or down is something we can

locate in a single question or comment.

But it can often be more subtle than

this.

“Nitpickers” are people who have a

longstanding tendency to have

conversations constantly take place on

a concrete,

literal,

and detailed level.

The result can be a conversational

style that is felt by others to be very

dull,

dragging,

and uninspired.

It’s like the conversation gets

“stuck in the weeds” and never

really launches.

This is the person who,

when you tell them you’ve met the

love of your life,

will be curious about what time in the

morning you met them and what their

name is and whether you spell that name

with one L or two.

We tend to become conversational

nitpickers ourselves for a few reasons.

We may be anxious and trying to control

the course of the conversation but

inadvertently keep it muzzled to

endless mundane details.

We may be bored ourselves.

The way out is simple .- If you find

that you or your listener is getting

bored or distracted,

sit back (sometimes literally!)

and ask an open-ended,

completely abstract question.

Say something about an intangible

concept.

Introduce a metaphor,

or even a controversial and nuanced

opinion.

This should kick the conversation back

into gear.

Conversational Extremist .- The

Philosopher.

The other extreme is the person who

never,

ever comes down from some towering

abstract conversational heights and

seems to always be looking down at

humans and all the petty details of

their lives ...a bit like a philosopher.

These are the people who will

constantly try to make isolate

observations or single anecdotes mean

something about a grander political,

social,

or philosophical narrative.

You might want to rant a little about

someone who was late,

and they respond with a

deep-and-meaningful deconstruction of

the entire notion of lateness,

of all mankind’s tendencies to rebel

against artificial segmentation of this

imaginary construct called time,

and to finish off,

some complex psychoanalysis of the late

person—not just this person in

question,

but all people who are late.

The conversational philosopher is

someone who is always looking for

theories,

patterns,

and overarching themes,

but this can come across as pompous,

cold,

and irrelevant.

The solution,

here,

is also obvious .- Come back to earth

with a question about this person’s

specific life in the here and now.

This should immediately anchor and

ground the conversation,

with a side effect of making you seem

more human,

more approachable,

and more relaxed.

Chunking up or down,

then,

is not just a cognitive exercise about

how information is managed.

It’s also about the degree of

openness or closedness in a

conversation,

the overall sense of flow,

and the extent that either levity or

seriousness is allowed to dominate.

Use chunking up questions when you want

to summarize,

contextualize,

consolidate,

or get some distance—theoretical or

emotional.

This is a focus on an overarching

organization,

on purpose and intention.

Use chunking down questions when you

want to expand on some point,

zoom in,

confirm,

or get to grips with the more

“real” aspects of the conversation.

This is a focus on how the overarching

themes express themselves in specific

ways,

on unique experience,

and on the details - who,

where,

when,

how,

what,

and why.

Finally,

pay attention to chunking in conflict

situations.

You may discover that at least part of

the problem is that two people are

talking with different chunking

tendencies.

For example,

your boss may call you in with the

intention of discussing an issue.

Your boss keeps listing out all

instances of this issue and expanding

on the details of each.

You get impatient because you are eager

to understand what all of it

means—what is the single insight or

conclusion you are meant to come to?

Your boss sees you wanting to boil

everything down and find some common

cause for each transgression,

but assumes this means you are not

accepting the fact that there are many

offenses,

not just one.

You see your boss endlessly listing

grievances but without synthesizing

them into anything you can act on.

And round and round you both talk,

both unable to reach one another

because you’re operating at

completely different levels of detail.

When communication has devolved to this

extent,

the way back to a shared frame of

reference is to ask questions or make

comments that gradually close the gap.

“What is that an example of?"

“Is there something that connects all

these observations?"

“What one thing do you want me to

take from this conversation?"

On the other hand,

if you’re having a conflict with

someone who is being overly vague and

abstract,

try to help them zoom in by asking

things like - “Can you give me a

specific example of what you’re

talking about?"

“When did this event happen?

With whom?

How?"

“Can you pinpoint the exact moment it

all went wrong?"

Think Before You Speak.

“I just call it like I see it."

“I’m being honest."

“That’s not what I meant to say."

“I’m just being me."

“I don’t do small talk."

Have you ever said any of the above?

One major impediment to health,

effective communication is a set of

subtle but very damaging beliefs about

what is actually required of us as

humans when we speak to others.

Some of these beliefs come from the

idea that as long as we are authentic,

sincere,

and share our emotions,

that’s enough;

in other words,

our intentions matter,

and how we articulate ourselves is less

important.

Nothing could be further from the truth!

Good communicators know that you cannot

just,

well,

blurt out whatever enters your mind.

You need to be deliberate.

You need to consciously filter what you

say.

You need to speak with purpose and

discipline.

If you’ve ever said something you

later regretted or really “put your

foot in it,” then this is a sign that

you could use more deliberation in the

way you communicate!

The first thing is to subtly challenge

the idea that communication is solely

about expressing yourself,

your position,

or your emotions.

It is not really relevant whether you

have a strong feeling about something,

whether you feel like you’re right

(or even if you are right!),

or whether you are overcome by this or

that impulse in the moment.

Since communication is a social

activity,

it involves others,

and that automatically means that a

portion of all communication is simply

not about you.

People who understand and work with

this insight are ultimately better at

communication than those who keep on

stubbornly insisting “it’s not my

fault that they misunderstood me!"

Being a conscious and careful

communicator means you avoid causing

offense or misunderstanding,

you boost your credibility and maturity

in other peoples’ eyes,

and you generally keep yourself out of

trouble!

Speaking without thinking,

however,

often occurs because we’re impatient,

we’re conversational narcissists

(more on this later in the book),

we are not good at listening,

or simply we’re excited and get

carried away with sharing what we want

to share.

Not everything you think and feel needs

to be shared.

Not everything that pops into your head

needs to be expressed.

To decide what qualifies an idea to be

shared,

ask yourself the following questions -

1. Do I have good motives?

Is what you’re going to say helpful

or useful to yourself or anyone else?

Be honest about what your motives are.

Many people butt in during

conversations to share some tidbit of

information that is completely

irrelevant,

simply because it satisfies their own

ego to say something and impress others.

Be real and assess whether what

you’re saying moves things forward

and contributes to the shared goal of

the conversation (i.e.,

not some hidden agenda of your own).

Some people will say something along

the lines of “if you can’t say

something nice,

don’t say anything at all."

But sometimes,

you will have to express something

that’s not “nice,” especially if

you are defending a boundary or

addressing conflict.

Still,

your motives should be to share any

grievance or disagreement with the

intention of clarifying and resolving

it,

rather than to blame and shame.

This is why motive matters.

You may be able to fool the other

person that you are saying something

out of concern or genuine

misunderstanding,

but at least be honest with yourself

and check whether you’re speaking for

some other,

less noble reason.

2. Is it true?

Opinions,

perspectives,

and desires are one thing.

But ask if,

beyond this,

you are actually saying something you

know to be a falsehood.

This may seem an obvious point to

labor,

but often we insert little falsehoods

into what we say without being

conscious of it.

We exaggerate,

we minimize,

we omit important information,

or we present our best guess as more

certain than it really is.

Again,

it ties into motive.

Are we genuinely and honestly sharing

what we know,

or are we trying to come across as an

expert?

In the realm of our own perceptions and

experiences,

of course,

nothing is really “true” or

“false”—it is our unique

experience.

But be careful that you never act as

though something being true for you

automatically makes it true for another

person.

Here,

being truthful means owning and

acknowledging your own perspective,

while not overstepping and behaving as

though that perspective were truth.

3. Am I breaking confidences?

It goes without saying - never share

something you’ve been asked to keep

private.

Gossip is awful and degrades the