One Sunday recently, my wife and children and I went to visit family friends, and in the noise and chaos of the children's playing around us, we started talking about lying. Not lying in bed asleep (although for parents of young children this is what they frequently dream about!), but not telling the truth. We quickly reached the conclusion that lying generally receives bad publicity. Whether we like it or not, the ability to communicate false messages is a vitally important lifeskill. If you don't believe it, think about the last time your mother asked you if she looked nice in that horrible new dress she bought!
Our friend declared that he was quite proud of the fact that his children were able to lie, which, at first, was shocking, but when I listened to what he had to say about it, I understood better what he meant. When you think that a child learns absolutely everything through experience at the beginning, it is really a giant step forward when the child is able to tell the difference between real and unreal, true and false, and be confident enough to know that what is being described is not real. Then, added to that, the child knows that describing an imagined situation will bring benefits ('I already asked Mummy, and she said I could have a sweet', or 'Did you hit your brother?' -'No').
While I can also quite happily declare that I'm proud that my children possess this ability, I am more proud of the fact that thay choose to admit to what they have done wrong (at least for now -I'm sure that will change soon enough), and that they only tell untruths when they are playing ('Daddy I'm a motorbike!).
Our friend then said that lying is necessary in business, which I agreed with to a certain extent. A character in one of Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels came from a tribe where almost nobody had the ability to tell a lie. For this reason, the ones who had this gift were nominated to the position of tribal liers, and it was they who were sent to negotiate and trade with other tribes. The example our friend gave, however, was of a different situation. He claimed that when dealing with subordinates who have made mistakes, a manager had to lie, and praise them, although he'd really like to just shout and swear at them. I was also surprised at this theory. In all the years I have had people work under me, I don't think I have ever felt the need to lie to them.
Of course, there is the question of diplomacy -I would never tell anyone they were rubbish, but there is also the question of propriety -of discussing the proper topic with the proper person. If one of my subordinates -at any time in my career- asked me if I thought they were ugly, pretty, in good shape, a good singer etc., I don't think that would have any effect on our work relationship. I would answer diplomatically, as I would if anybody asked me.
There is a saying "The truth, however ugly, is good. A lie, however beautiful, is bad." With this in mind, I wonder just how successful you can be as a manager if you lie to your staff. I much prefer to tell my staff what I really think about their ideas, work and input. The trick, though, is to make sure they know that these are your feelings, and not facts. "I think that you could have done better" is a fact, explaining the way you think. Such a statement can lead to discourse, as youmay discuss how the work could have been better, and a next step (or steps) can be planned together. "That is hopeless" is a useless phrase which has no positive quality whatsoever. In addition, it is stating your -highly subjective- opinion as a fact. This, in its own way, is a big lie, and one that is definitely bad.
poniedziałek, 22 czerwca 2009
czwartek, 4 czerwca 2009
Forty Years in Search of an 'a'.
According to an article by BBC science correspondent Pallab Ghosh, Niel Armstrong slipped when he stepped onto the moon in 1969. Ever since the historic event, people have debated about whether the first words ever spoken on the moon were
"That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind", or
"That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind".
Armstrong himself was convinced that he had said the second sentence -which does in fact make more sense. However, the words of the first man on the moon have often been quoted in the first form, in which the word 'man' has roughly the same meaning as 'mankind', so making the sentence slightly more cryptic.
In an effort to solve this debate, Dr Chris Riley, author of the book Apollo 11, An Owner's Manual, and forensic linguist John Olsson carried out the most detailed analysis yet of Neil Armstrong's speech patterns.
Riley and Olsson studied archive material o Neil armstrong speaking, recorded throughout and after the Apollo 11 mission. They then took the original magnetic tape recordings made at Johnson Space Centre, Houston, which have recently been re-digitised to make uncompressed, higher-fidelity audio recordings.
These clearer recordings indicate that the "r" in "for" and "m" in "man" run into each other, leaving no room for an "a".
But there is a rising pitch in the word "man" and a falling pitch when he says "mankind", which suggests Commander Armstrong was contrasting using speech. According to Mr. Olsson, this indicates that Armstrong "knows the difference between man and mankind and that he meant man as in 'a man' not 'humanity'."
Mr. Olsson says that Armstrong may have "subconsciously drawn from his poetic instincts to utter a phrase that, far from being incorrect - was perfect for the moment."
"That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind", or
"That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind".
Armstrong himself was convinced that he had said the second sentence -which does in fact make more sense. However, the words of the first man on the moon have often been quoted in the first form, in which the word 'man' has roughly the same meaning as 'mankind', so making the sentence slightly more cryptic.
In an effort to solve this debate, Dr Chris Riley, author of the book Apollo 11, An Owner's Manual, and forensic linguist John Olsson carried out the most detailed analysis yet of Neil Armstrong's speech patterns.
Riley and Olsson studied archive material o Neil armstrong speaking, recorded throughout and after the Apollo 11 mission. They then took the original magnetic tape recordings made at Johnson Space Centre, Houston, which have recently been re-digitised to make uncompressed, higher-fidelity audio recordings.
These clearer recordings indicate that the "r" in "for" and "m" in "man" run into each other, leaving no room for an "a".
But there is a rising pitch in the word "man" and a falling pitch when he says "mankind", which suggests Commander Armstrong was contrasting using speech. According to Mr. Olsson, this indicates that Armstrong "knows the difference between man and mankind and that he meant man as in 'a man' not 'humanity'."
Mr. Olsson says that Armstrong may have "subconsciously drawn from his poetic instincts to utter a phrase that, far from being incorrect - was perfect for the moment."
wtorek, 2 czerwca 2009
Kuleshov -saying something by saying nothing
One Christmas, as a present, my brother got me a subscription to 'Empire', a British magazine about films. One of the issues delivered had a free book with it, 'The Empire Movie Miscellany'. Recently, I picked it up and read through it, and came across an entry titled 'The Kuleshov Effect'.
This name describes an experiment in film editing carried out by the Russian Filmmaker Lev Kuleshov. In the experiment, Kuleshov showed an image of the expresionless face of actor Ivan Mozzhukhin, and intercut it with shots of a plate of soup, a little girl and an old woman's coffin.
When the film was shown, audiences praised the mastery of the acting, and raved about Mozzhukhin's range, with his ability to display hunger, fatherly love, and grief with such finesse. Vsevolod Pudovkin (who later claimed to have been the co-creator of the experiment) described in 1929 how the audience "raved about the acting.... the heavy pensiveness of his mood over the forgotten soup, were touched and moved by the deep sorrow with which he looked on the dead woman, and admired the light, happy smile with which he surveyed the girl at play. But we knew that in all three cases the face was exactly the same."
Kuleshov used the experiment to indicate the usefulness and effectiveness of film editing. However, the implications are much more interesting on a broader scale. The experiment worked because viewers brought their own emotional reactions to the sequence of images, and then 'projected' their own assumptions and emotions onto the actor. Mozzukhin's blank expression became a blank canvas on which viewers could not help painting over with their own subconscious feelings. In short, then, we have another in a long line of examples of people assuming, instead of verifying, and so, the next opportunity for misinterpretation arises.
Everybody who is interested in communication knows about Professor Albert Mehrabian and his statistic regarding message transmissions. Essentially, Professor Mehrabian found that
When we want to deliver a message, we have to decide if we want to do it explicitly, in which case there is no doubt what we are communicating, or implicitly, allowing the audience to make its own conclusions. A student of mine told me of a case where she wanted to help a client who had asked for the e-mail address of her supervisor. She explained that she could not give out the e-mail address of John Smith, her supervisor at company, but the client could e-mail her at her address, which was the standard format of e-mail addresses for everyone in that company: Jane.Jones@company.com. The client, sounding offended, told her he was sorry she couldn't ooperate. Sometimes, we just have to hope our audience is clever enough to make assumptions.
This name describes an experiment in film editing carried out by the Russian Filmmaker Lev Kuleshov. In the experiment, Kuleshov showed an image of the expresionless face of actor Ivan Mozzhukhin, and intercut it with shots of a plate of soup, a little girl and an old woman's coffin.
When the film was shown, audiences praised the mastery of the acting, and raved about Mozzhukhin's range, with his ability to display hunger, fatherly love, and grief with such finesse. Vsevolod Pudovkin (who later claimed to have been the co-creator of the experiment) described in 1929 how the audience "raved about the acting.... the heavy pensiveness of his mood over the forgotten soup, were touched and moved by the deep sorrow with which he looked on the dead woman, and admired the light, happy smile with which he surveyed the girl at play. But we knew that in all three cases the face was exactly the same."
Kuleshov used the experiment to indicate the usefulness and effectiveness of film editing. However, the implications are much more interesting on a broader scale. The experiment worked because viewers brought their own emotional reactions to the sequence of images, and then 'projected' their own assumptions and emotions onto the actor. Mozzukhin's blank expression became a blank canvas on which viewers could not help painting over with their own subconscious feelings. In short, then, we have another in a long line of examples of people assuming, instead of verifying, and so, the next opportunity for misinterpretation arises.
Everybody who is interested in communication knows about Professor Albert Mehrabian and his statistic regarding message transmissions. Essentially, Professor Mehrabian found that
- 7% of message pertaining to feelings and attitudes is in the words that are spoken.
- 38% of message pertaining to feelings and attitudes is paralinguistic (the way that the words are said).
- 55% of message pertaining to feelings and attitudes is in facial expression.
When we want to deliver a message, we have to decide if we want to do it explicitly, in which case there is no doubt what we are communicating, or implicitly, allowing the audience to make its own conclusions. A student of mine told me of a case where she wanted to help a client who had asked for the e-mail address of her supervisor. She explained that she could not give out the e-mail address of John Smith, her supervisor at company, but the client could e-mail her at her address, which was the standard format of e-mail addresses for everyone in that company: Jane.Jones@company.com. The client, sounding offended, told her he was sorry she couldn't ooperate. Sometimes, we just have to hope our audience is clever enough to make assumptions.
poniedziałek, 1 czerwca 2009
Cocaine Gives You Wings!
About a year ago, the makers of energy drink Red Bull introduced a new cola-flavoured drink, Red Bull Cola, onto the market. Last week, a health institute in North-Rhine Westphalia found traces of cocaine in the drink, which led to authorities in six German states banning the drink. An article in TIME magazine reminds us that, until 1903 Coca Cola contained traces of cocaine, and explains that according to the analysis, the 0.13 micrograms of cocaine per can of the drink does not pose a serious health threat — you'd have to drink 12,000 litres of Red Bull Cola for negative effects to be felt! Indeed, officials confirmed that the cocaine levels were too low to pose a health threat but were not permitted in foodstuffs.
Stories like this come around from time to time, where a new product is found to have a harmful ingredient or effect. What interested me, though, is Red Bull's reaction to the report.
A Red Bull spokesman said "De-cocainized extract of coca leaf is used worldwide in foods as a natural flavoring", and Red Bull said its cola was "harmless and marketable" in both the US and EU.
It is quite easy to see that the authorities in question, while perhaps panicking, are just reacting to concerns that could be raised by the public. Red Bull's answer has two points that interest me. The first is that they seem to completely ignore that the findings are the result of research carried out by Institutes -accepted bodies of wisdom in society. Their statement also ignores the decisions of six German states (and, since the whole affair started, several countries which have called for the drink to be withdrawn), and so suggests that Red Bull are not concerned with what governments think.
I'm not suggesting they reinvent the drink, but often -as is the case in many differences of opinion- it's enough to say "We understand how you feel". Red Bull have shown no empathy whatsoever -a key factor in customer relations. They have decided that they would go ahead and do their own thing.
What is their thing? That is the next point. Red Bull's official statement claimed not that the drink was "harmless and acceptable", not that it was "harmless and drinkable", but that it was "harmless and marketable", not the warmest, kindest, most honourable characteristic of a drink. I can't help wondering if the attitude shown in the company's response didn't lose them some support, as they suggest that a) local governments don't know what they are doing, and b) they are able to market it, so it must be okay.
On the other side, given that Red Bull's website is full of videos and photos of extreme sports, high-energy racing machines and adrenaline-fuelled adventure, it may just be the reaction to what they see as great publicity!
Stories like this come around from time to time, where a new product is found to have a harmful ingredient or effect. What interested me, though, is Red Bull's reaction to the report.
A Red Bull spokesman said "De-cocainized extract of coca leaf is used worldwide in foods as a natural flavoring", and Red Bull said its cola was "harmless and marketable" in both the US and EU.
It is quite easy to see that the authorities in question, while perhaps panicking, are just reacting to concerns that could be raised by the public. Red Bull's answer has two points that interest me. The first is that they seem to completely ignore that the findings are the result of research carried out by Institutes -accepted bodies of wisdom in society. Their statement also ignores the decisions of six German states (and, since the whole affair started, several countries which have called for the drink to be withdrawn), and so suggests that Red Bull are not concerned with what governments think.
I'm not suggesting they reinvent the drink, but often -as is the case in many differences of opinion- it's enough to say "We understand how you feel". Red Bull have shown no empathy whatsoever -a key factor in customer relations. They have decided that they would go ahead and do their own thing.
What is their thing? That is the next point. Red Bull's official statement claimed not that the drink was "harmless and acceptable", not that it was "harmless and drinkable", but that it was "harmless and marketable", not the warmest, kindest, most honourable characteristic of a drink. I can't help wondering if the attitude shown in the company's response didn't lose them some support, as they suggest that a) local governments don't know what they are doing, and b) they are able to market it, so it must be okay.
On the other side, given that Red Bull's website is full of videos and photos of extreme sports, high-energy racing machines and adrenaline-fuelled adventure, it may just be the reaction to what they see as great publicity!
Subskrybuj:
Posty (Atom)
