Hawaii's legislators agree to a new communication modelA news report I'd like to experience.
Hawaii's legislators agree to provide for, and request, immediate feedback about their various communications when interacting with the public. Towards this end, each elected official will have his/her own Internet forum so that the public may ask questions and offer suggestions/feedback.
States a legislator: We have agreed to replace the present Political Communication Model, characterized by lecturing and little or no space for satisfactory clarification/feedback. For example: Most everyone has experienced confusion or upset when listening to President Trump, however, even most media interviewers are afraid to press for specific answers to
our questions; this fear is a great disservice to the public.
* The press are not in-communication with the president; none have the leadership-communication skills to request and secure an open, honest, and spontaneous communication televised sit-down with him. This is not the President's fault; his parents and teachers have not modeled for him how to have others feel good upon completion; he has not been trained to look out among the sea of faces to experience what's not being verbalized.
For example: It's understood that a professor has no intention for all the students to get and understand the lecture. During college it's a student's responsibility to get the subject matter. Unfortunately, most high school teachers emulate this adversarial communication model, (win-lose, better-than,
withholding). Education majors are not taught to communicate subject matter, ergo, 25% of the nation's college freshmen require remedial composition and comprehension courses.
States one counsel member: "Gone are the days when we can dump a thought in another's space and not ensure that it has been gotten; we will ensure that there are no confusions before we introduce the next unique pertinent thought, and to not continue with another thought until the first one has been gotten. After each question we answer we will then ask, "Did I answer your question?"
Lectures, townhall meetings, campaign and enrollment activities will begin with:
Raise your hand if you have a pre-existing upset or disappointment with me. Please stand and verbally share your consideration until everyone else gets that I have recreated your communication.
Read Reader:
What will happen with this way of starting any meeting, a get-together, is that someone will stand and communicate their upset. The legislator, leader, facilitator, will get into communication with the individual. The conversation will continue until both feel good, or another audience member raised his/her hand with a consideration.
Audience members will be instructed to raised their hand if they hear something that conflicts with their reality (i.e. facts, figures, statements, quotes, etc.) i.e. "Please raise your hand if you hear something that's confusing, doesn't feel good or is questionably accurate." And ending with, Any questions?" The above interaction will result in greater clarification for everyone about that specific topic. Each attendee will have an opportunity to become clear about their position.
Towards the end of any get-together the facilitator will instruct the audience to pair off with the person next to them and alternately share, for three-minutes each, whatever thoughts they may have. This will allow participants to empty their mind, to be complete if they wish. An upset communicated will preclude dragging an
incomplete into conversations with others.
The above communication model is an alternate model, a way of interacting, with its own set of rules and agreements.
A communication model is a way of communicating that has specific rules; a model can be identified by its components, such as lecturing vs. communicating. For all but a few it's one-way. We hear something on TV and we have no effective speedy way to validate it or to ask questions.
I recommend that everyone read Adolf Hitler's biography, his rise to power. Had pre-WWII German civilians known what to look for, as it occurred, they would have produced another outcome, a different leader. All leaders in the process of communication mastery must eventually acknowledge (verbally acknowledge their ego, arrogance, and self-righteousness). A great beginning is
The Clearing Process for Professionals (it's free and it works). It's our responsibility to verbally communicate our considerations, else, we'll be the "good" Germans, telling our children, "I didn't know." and the biggie, "I was just follow orders."
The problem with us not insisting on verification or an acknowledgment for a prior inaccuracy, a sexist comment, a comment that didn't feel good, is that the President carries the karma of these verbally unacknowledged perpetrations into all future interactions. i.e. "I get that I lied when I said ..." "I get that I was abusive to ..." Specifcally, the President needs to hear others share their experiences of the correlation between personal integrity and outcomes.
Presently, President Trump has no choice other than to mirror our own personal integrity, our addictions to deceit, finding-fault, making others wrong, and to withholding.
Last edited 5/18/17
