Feelings Have Consequences

Sometimes what we say and do really matters even when the other person knows otherwise on a rational level.

In salary and other negotiations, suggesting a number will often influence the final deal. That's known as anchoring.

For example, in a simulation, people applied for jobs as administrative assistants and said that their last salary was $29,000 - which often guides the final pay offer. Some applicants joking said they wanted to earn $100,000, while others didn't. The ones who made that joke were offered an average of $35,385 - 9% higher than the average of $32,463 among those who didn't.

Even when the employer rationally knew that $100,000 was so unrealistic that the applicant must have been joking, that number implanted a feeling in the employer's head to focus on high numbers. The employer may have expected that the first set of applicants, while joking about the specific $100,000 figure, would still require higher salaries to come on board. In other words, the employer's feelings went well beyond the objective meaning of the numbers, and shaped their behavior.

When dealing with people, we need to focus on their feelings, not just the facts. In a conflict, feelings often win.

NT Planet: The Power Of A Kind Word

Gary Noesner, retired FBI* Chief Negotiator, recently reflected on his work - ending with:

When I used to interview people when they had surrendered after an incident and ask them what one thing I said to make them change their mind, they would invariably reply, ‘I don’t know what you said but I liked the way you said it.’ Our genuine, sincere, and concerned tone and demeanour are the most powerful tools of influence that we know.

[Emphasis added]

These were hardened criminals, or people who had snapped, or otherwise desperate folks, who had barricaded a place and often taken hostages. Some of them had robbed, hurt and even killed people.

And even they, pace Al Capone, didn't consider a gun more important than a kind word. Every FBI agent, not to mention every other police officer on the scene as well, had at least one gun. If guns were what mattered they wouldn't need any professional negotiators, let alone a chief negotiator.

NTs (and even some Aspies - more than we might think) are moved by kind words...and kind tones of voice.

[*] U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation; the closest we in America have to a Federal police.

NT Planet: How Do People "Think"?

Let's face it: People are sometimes irrational.

Take this bike - please.

Seriously, if you saw someone trying to steal a bike, what would you do? Chase the thief away? Call the cops? Or...help him or her?

Well, there's the rub. As ABC News' "What Would You Do?" shows, if the thief is a her - specifically, a young, slim, blonde and generally attractive woman - and you're a him, you just might help her.

In this video (SFW), actress (and model and singer) Ashley Carpenter visibly takes her time trying to steal a bicycle in a park. Each time someone approaches her, she makes clear that the bike is not hers and she wants to steal it.

Notice what happened: Some of the men - but no women - actually helped her!

Not exactly news that men will go out of their way to help attractive young women, right? They even may help them commit crimes.

That's just it. Even though it's not news, men don't arm themselves against it. Not all or even most of them say to themselves "As a man, I'm vulnerable to young, pretty women's appeals, so if one approaches me I'll be extra suspicious. Especially if what she's asking is, well, evil."

Pretty strong evidence that people act, at least significantly, based on their emotions. Keep in mind that women's emotions weren't necessarily engaged in this particular situation, because very few women are trying to impress, or feel the primal need to protect, a pretty young woman.

We Aspies need to understand that when (not if) we need others' cooperation, logic, reason - even, at times, elementary moral principles - aren't enough. We need to look as good as possible, and otherwise engage people's emotions and primal desires - perhaps especially the ones no one will ever admit to themselves, much less others.

H/T: Brandon Oto

PS: Since, if you were cast in "What Would You Do?," you likely would be portrayed acting unethically if not illegally, ABC News warns:

Please beware of unauthorized people claiming to be casting directors for "What Would You Do." ABC News' "What Would You Do?" hires actors through established casting agencies only.

NT Planet: Wrong Way Corrigan

This week, we'll look at a way in which NTs can take a good thing too far.

In this Dilbert strip, Dogbert is asked for directions. After making a joke based on the way the driver worded his request, Dogbert gives a set of directions. As the driver leaves, Dogbert reveals that he actually has no idea how to get there, but he didn't want the driver to think Dogbert was a jerk.

In fact, a commenter says that's common practice in Thailand, and speculates that maybe one gives subtle signals that the directions one is giving are not real. Meanwhile, I've been told that happens sometimes in Mexico, too.

NTs have a commendable urge to do whatever's possible to avoid saying "No," or "I can't help you." That's good when it motivates one to make extra efforts to actually help someone. It's not so good, and in fact is hypocritical, when one can't (or won't) help them but pretends to do so...often making them worse off in the process.

If there are subtle signals that in effect say "I'm just being polite...ignore these directions and ask someone else" - that's nice...if everyone notices and recognizes them. Let's assume, at least for the sake of argument, that saying "Take these directions, left, right and then left..." plus subtle signals meaning "Ignore these, I don't know the way" feels better to the recipient than saying "I'm sorry, I wish I could help."

But pretty much by definition, subtle signals are not always noticed, let alone recognized. People waste time, gas (two nonrenewable resources) and air quality taking a false route and then getting back on track. They may suffer even more if, for example, they accidentally get into a bad part of town.

It's good to make others feel good, especially if you can follow your own words and actually help someone. If you really can't assist them, the ethical thing to do is to be honest about it, and to whatever extent possible point them to better sources of help.

---

Meanwhile, you might recall I appeared recently on Neil Haley's Total Education Show - check out the podcast any time.

Next up, tomorrow evening I'm speaking at The Auburn School in Silver Spring, Maryland! It's free and open to the community - if you want to attend, please pre-register as soon as you can.

NT Planet: How To Say No Around The World

As we may know - in fact as many of us do know since Aspies are sometimes especially interested in other countries - different cultures have different ways of saying "no". Americans are (as a group) significantly more direct than, for example, East Asians (ditto). (Having lived in Beijing, I can attest to this.) In fact, even among English speakers we Americans tend to be more direct.

Iris tells us of a friend of hers, "Bill," staying in Japan, whose major issue there is Japanese people's vaunted inability to say "no". For example, when he wanted to look at a house (to further his architectural interests), he asked permission of the owners through a mutual friend - and was told that the owners "are busy for the entire year"!

Iris points out that Americans say "no" indirectly as well - the difference is that Americans might be more creative with excuses, whereas Japanese people saying in effect "We're busy for the entire year" are more transparent.

In other words, maybe Americans say "no" so well others - including NTs - may not even know they're being told "no". People may really believe the excuse (eg, having a screening to go to) and figure there's an actual problem and the other person would love to say "yes" but for the problem. (Beyond a certain point, that can cause problems too.)

Meanwhile, feel free to check out the comments to Iris' post for a look at how Chinese, Koreans and even French may say "no". (NB: A bit of the language there is NSFW.)

What do you think?

NT Planet: Different Levels of Communication

Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, Ron McMillan and Al Switzler - founders of VitalSmarts - have written an interesting book: Crucial Conversations: Tools For Talking When Stakes Are High. It gives some perspectives on addressing people's concerns when talking in a sensitive situation.

The first task is, of course, noticing when a sensitive situation exists. For example, on page 143:

A patient is exiting a health-care facility. The desk attendant can tell that she is a bit uneasy, maybe even dissatisfied.

"Did everything go right with the procedure?" the clerk asks.

"Mostly," the patient replies. (If ever there was a hint that something was wrong, the term "mostly" has to be it.)

From a merely logical perspective, "mostly" is not necessarily a hint. After all, the patient is saying that most of it went well, we all know nothing is perfect and she is not voicing any particular complaints.

Only after we add in the understanding that people tend to communicate through hints, and therefore expect us to interpret anything other than a 100% endorsement as a sign of a problem, do we see that this is a hint expecting us to ask what's wrong.

Keep in mind that NTs often communicate in two or more stages, especially with negative information. The first stage introduces the fact of negative information, and only after we let them know that we want to hear the news does the other person continue.

That does not make sense from a strictly logical perspective - after all, if you need to communicate something, why not just go ahead and say it? Especially when the alternative is to drop a hint, and then if the other person doesn't pick up on it blame him/her later? Wouldn't it be more efficient, not to mention less risky, just to transmit the information right away?

However, from an emotional perspective, it can make sense. In effect, one first asks for permission to give the information, then the other person is expected to give it, then the first person goes ahead. Logically, if the second person is expected to give the permission anyway, and if she doesn't get the hint in the first place it's her problem because she's presumed to get it, what point is the ritual? Isn't it hypocritical and worse, since it may be misinterpreted?

The point is, to people who communicate emotionally as well as logically, that the ritual communicates a broader message: I care about your feelings and don't want to press undesirable information onto you. And in turn: I care about your feelings and want to give you permission to express negative information, therefore showing you that I want to resolve your concerns - and don't want you to feel censored.

Could a group of people agree - either literally or in their actions - to do away with the rituals, assume everyone wants to have any information that he would need, and go ahead and give all the information immediately in the clearest possible way - especially since the other person can always ignore it? For example, instead of "Mostly," could the above patient say (from page 144), without the clerk having to prompt her:

"It hurt quite a bit. And besides, isn't the doctor, like, uh, way too old?"

Sure. The patient and the clerk, and maybe other people, just need a different set of understandings in mind when they think of and process this kind of information. The patient needs to feel that it's OK to give negative information even at risk of being ignored or even criticized or attacked, and needs to understand that the clerk might not get it otherwise. Meanwhile, the clerk needs to feel that it's OK for the other person to give negative information even before the clerk has given "permission". That's a matter of culture.

Thing is, it's a matter of very few NT cultures. Since it's a matter of culture and language, everyone or almost everyone needs to get with the program for it to work. (It's like computer programs - you can create the most brilliant program in the world, but if it doesn't interface well with the computers and other software people are already using, it's worthless if not worse.)

And that's not going to change in the foreseeable future. So we need to understand that NTs tend to communicate on several levels - they communicate on both a logical and emotional level, and also they give a hint of negative information first, and then wait for your (expected) permission before giving the rest.

What do you think?

NT Planet: Let's Give Them Something To Talk About (Talk About Etiquette)

Singer Bonnie Raitt did "Something To Talk About" - describing how folks seem to think that she and a certain someone have feelings for each other:

...[T]hey keep saying

We laugh just a little too loud

We stand just a little too close

We stare just a little too long

Guess what? Those are three pivotal types of body language, and changes in those areas show that something different is going on - as self-defense and communications expert Rory Miller has pointed out. Within a given subculture, ethnicity, form of relationship, etc., people have normal tones of voice, personal space and eye contact.

That means that when people use a louder (or softer) tone of voice, allow each other less (or more) personal space, or make longer, more direct (or shorter, less direct) eye contact than are considered normal where they are, something is going on. And while softer tones of voice or even whispers can carry the same connotations of closeness as especially hearty laughter, standing particularly close and looking at one another longer than normal are strong hints that two people especially like each other and want to get to know each other better.

Bonnie goes on to point us to another very interesting feature:

Maybe they're seeing something we don't, Darlin'.

These are subtle and subconscious signals. Body language and tones of voice transmit things that people sometimes don't admit to themselves - or even know on a conscious level. If you were to ask Bonnie at that moment whether she had feelings for the other person:

• She may refuse to tell you the truth,

• She may trust you enough to tell you if she knows - but she hasn't come to terms with it herself yet, or even

• She may be honest with both you and herself - but maybe she hasn't yet even decided it on a level she can put into words.

Bottom line: The more we can pick up on others' nonverbal signals - and abide by accepted nonverbal signal patterns where we are - the better we can understand others, predict their behavior and minimize being being misunderstood by others. We can ask people to articulate more of their expectations of us, and to focus more on our words than our actions (including our subconscious ones), but such requests will only take us so far. We can get a real leg up by communicating better nonverbally.

What do you think?

NT Planet: Time to Take a Hint

Hello,

The comic "Dilbert," about an engineer in a supposedly high-tech company, gives some good views of what happens when Aspie and NT sensibilities collide. Aspies have tended to concentrate in high-tech industries, so these behavior patterns may be better understood there.

In this Dilbert strip, Dilbert is chatting up a woman; she asks if he has a good job, and he mentions that the stock market has taken a toll on his stock options - so he's not exactly wealthy. She then looks at her watch and says "Hey, look at the time" - while Dilbert keeps talking.

Like it or lump it, many women* consider wealth and income important factors when selecting a man. When Dilbert admitted that the stock market had taken a toll on his finances, she wasn't interested in him anymore. Rather than say that outright, she "noticed" the time - which implies that she has to leave soon. It's considered a polite way to end a conversation.

Of course, it's somewhat exaggerated here. In real life, the woman would chat for another minute or three as a "decent interval". Since people know that mentioning time and having to leave is a polite substitute for the truth, people figure that such an excuse - especially right after receiving information that she may find negative - is likely untrue and in fact she doesn't want to chat anymore with a guy who's not earning a lot. Since officially we frown on people dating or marrying for money, people are hypocritical about it.

It's a classic form of hypocrisy - she doesn't want to actually say "Since you don't have a lot of money, I don't want to talk to you anymore." But she also needs him to understand that in fact she's terminating the conversation permanently. If Dilbert took her literally, he may offer to chat some other time when she's free - even ask for her phone number or email address.

On the one hand, social mores prevent her from (at least being comfortable) saying it. On the other hand, she still needs him to know it - and social mores expect him to accept it, too. This kind of hypocrisy explains much social dynamics.

[*] My wife Emily is not that kind of woman!

UPDATE: Donnla Nic Gearailt responds: "A woman who is mainly interested in a man's finances shouldn't limit herself to just the one john."

NT Planet: Superior Forms of Communication

Looking for an excellent guide to the "hidden curriculum" of law firms and law careers? Kimm Alayne Walton's book What Law School Doesn't Teach You...But You Really Need to Know fills the bill.

For example, on page 194, she points up the dilemma faced by a law student who had just gotten a job offer from a law firm:

The managing partner had sent him a letter inviting him to the firm's annual golf outing. The letter included the line, "We know you may not golf, I don't, but I participate every year." The [soon-to-be-lawyer] asked [his law school's] career services director, "Do I really have to go? I've got to study for the Bar exam. And I don't golf!" She responded, "Absolutely! You should tell them that you're really excited about it, but you've never held a golf club."

He protested, but she continued, "You don't know if this is an event you can blow off. The tone of the letter suggests that every lawyer in the firm goes. If they all do it, you can't turn down the invitation."

[Emphasis added.]

NTs tend to be hypocritical about certain things, including superior-subordinate relationships. They don't always like to let it show that they're ordering a subordinate to do something...but they do expect the subordinates themselves to understand.

Such as with events like golf outings. On the one hand, the point of something that looks like fun is that it's supposed to "be" fun. And that's kind of hard to reconcile with subordinates being ordered to participate.

On the other hand, those in charge want everyone to participate in certain things, perhaps to give a show of having fun and help the superiors feel happy about putting on a good event. Other reasons may include helping the people relax and get to know one another better, and helping superiors observe subordinates under more relaxed conditions. For example, is Lucy really a sticker for detail? Put her in charge of the refreshments and let's find out!

Such knowledge is supposed to help everyone work together better. That's why the superiors ask subordinates to come and take part. But it destroys much of the point if the subordinates feel forced to do so.

Superiors manage this tension by putting certain obligations in softer terms. They don't necessarily say "You must do this" but rather something like "Even though I don't typically do this activity, I'm taking part here." The message is "This event is for everyone, not just for those who like this activity for its own sake. You should come even if you don't enjoy it."

Also, when a superior says something like "Everyone else is coming in Saturday," that means you should too. Yes, maybe you have better ways to spend your time Saturday. What are the odds that nobody else also had better things to do? The idea is that you should come even if you have things you'd rather do.

Trust me, when someone in a position to affect your life says that they themselves are doing this, or that everyone else is doing that, it's not meant as an amusing bit of trivia. Rather, it's considered a polite and not terribly subtle way of communicating that you'd be well advised to join in. With a smile.

NT Planet: Shooting the Messenger, Part II

Geniferous made an interesting point in response to last week's observation. She said that tone of voice matters too, so if we're unable to use the optimal tone of voice we should explain that in advance.

I certainly hope it would help, though I'm not confident it will fill the gap. Thing is, if words and rational explanations would satisfy the other person, tone of voice wouldn't matter in the first place.

Geniferous is absolutely right: One thing I've learned the hard way is that people - especially (but not only) NTs - are built to respond automatically to certain cues like tones of voices, facial expressions, gestures, etc. Therefore, the absence of those cues must have some effect beyond what words can compensate for.

More broadly, tone of voice can be the exception that proves the rule. With some NTs, you have to use so much sugar coating and soft soap that the bad news is twisted beyond recognition...perhaps even by the recipient. People may miss important information because it's so obscured.

Especially if they're not the most sensitive people in the world but people talk to them as though they were, because those people are afraid of underestimating how sensitive they are and getting ignored, screamed at or worse. Not to mention that all that sugar and soft soap doesn't come free - people have limited amounts of emotional and mental energy, after all.

So, gentle tones of voice and even other things like subtle phrasing, understatements and the like aren't even close to perfect fixes. They carry costs and problems of their own.

The more NTs (and even Aspies) who take bad news personally, the more informational and emotional issues we're going to have, one way or another.

What do you think?

NT Planet: Shooting the Messenger

In this Dilbert strip, the manager makes clear that he doesn't want to receive bad news, and thinks that someone who gives it to him, knowing he would feel upset, must hate him. He certainly wouldn't want such a person working for him.

For us, news is news as long as it's true and relevant, and it's only rational to meet bad news head on. For many NTs (and even some of us), news is also an emotional connection. NTs don't separate facts and feelings as readily as we (tend to) do, and often associate the messenger with the message.

The old saying about killing the messenger who brought bad news wasn't hyperbole - in ancient times, that line of work shortened your life expectancy. (These days, you may "just" worsen or lose, say, a friendship, relationship or job.)

So when communicating negative information, especially to an NT, don't assume it will be obvious that you didn't cause the situation - even if you say it in so many words. Either dress it up to a greater or lesser extent in euphemisms and understatements, and maybe put some positive information before and after it, or know that the other person may become angry with you and treat your news as an attack on them.

(PS: Many more people act this way than realize it. People tend to tell themselves they're much more rational than they really are. Most people "understand" that they shouldn't blame the messenger. Many people do it anyway, for reasons too complex to discuss here...though if anyone asks for elaboration, I'll be glad to do so.)

NT Planet: Hope and Change

The famed horror writer Stephen King - under his nom de plume Richard Bachman - wrote several books, including Roadwork...about Barton Dawes' self-destructive spiral. His wife Mary, having left him just days before, agrees to have lunch with him to discuss the next step:

Her hair was braided in a single thick cable that hung down to her shoulder blades, a way he could not recall having seen her wear it (and maybe worn that way for just that reason).

Why would Mary have taken the trouble of wearing her hair in a new way?

People often wear their clothes, jewelry, hair and the like in ways that signal things about themselves. For example, someone in a suit and tie is more likely to have one kind of socioeconomic background, education and career than, say, someone in faded overalls and work boots. Obviously, there are individual exceptions...but it's a good general rule.

And people sometimes signal change through what they wear. If your college buddy had previously gone through like in suits and ties, and then you see him in overalls and work boots, you might wonder if he's become a victim of the recession and been forced to take manual labor to pay the bills. Or - maybe he's just decided to switch careers.

Likewise with hairstyles. Mary could have been saying: "I'm not the same woman who was married to you for 20 years." That in turn can imply: "I've changed in terms of what I will and won't tolerate. You may be able to win me back...if you change your ways."

NT Planet: Euphemism in the Wild

You know how on Animal Planet, you get to see all these creatures in the wild and you learn more about them than you can looking in their cages at the zoo?

Well, for the new year I'm launching a new blog series: NT Planet. Examples of NTs and how they interact in their natural habitats.

To start us off, let's check out a review of emergency medicine in 2010 in which Kelly Grayson muses:

"Wait a minute, there are EMS systems out there that still use lidocaine, procainamide and furosemide? How...quaint."

First off, "quaint" is a nice way of saying "old-fashioned" or "outdated". In terms of, say, antiques and traditional architecture, that can be good. In terms of something like medicine, not so much.

("Not so much," btw, is a euphemism for "not at all.")

Also, did you note the ... in front of the "quaint". That's an ellipsis. If Grayson has been quoting an actual person and decided to omit one or more words between "How" and "quaint," the ellipsis would indicate that. But it's not the case.

Here, we've got an implied pause. And a pause in speech often means the person is searching for the right thing to say...not wanting to say the first thing that comes to mind. Since under NT norms, blunt thoughts need to be sugar-coated, someone may need to think for a second before coming up with a good euphemism.

And knowing this, one may intentionally pause for effect. The message is "What's coming up isn't the literal truth, but rather the nice-sounding version. To get the actual situation, dial up the negativity a few notches." It's a bit like reading someone's school transcript and knowing that they inflate all the grades by one letter, so if you see "B," for example, think "C".

In short, Mr. Grayson wants to say something pleasant about some emergency systems' medicine choices, so he can sound polite, but really wants us to know the unpleasant reality. That's how NTs act a good deal of the time.

Happy New Year!