Have we lost our ability to communicate?

Management guru Peter Drucker once said that the most important thing in communication is to hear what isn't being said. Although the exact figures aren’t agreed upon, most researchers agree that what we say (verbal communication) alone makes up less than 10% of our message, with the receiver taking the rest from non-verbal cues. These cues include kinesics(body language),paralinguistics(vocal nonverbal cues), chronemics(time conveying meaning), objectics(physical objects), oculesics(eye contact), haptics(touch), and proxemics(space and distance).

Sue Shellenbarger recently posted an article on the Wall Street Journal website, titled “For Teens, Has Texting Replaced Talking?” detailing how her kids spend most of their time texting. From the invention of the telegraph, to the everyday use of email and text messaging, we have introduced increasingly elaborate means of communicating with one another. However, it seems that as a result of this, we are in reality cutting down on communication. With increasing use of technology, most of our communication takes the form of the written word alone. Even in the same office, two colleagues who are seated right next to each other will be more likely to send instant messages or emails, rather than talking face-to-face. With the elimination of the interaction between two people, they are unable to observe any non-verbal cues the other may display. This eliminates much of the possible discussion that would otherwise occur. For example, a subordinate may agree with the boss because he doesn’t want to appear uncooperative, but have concerns about a scheme. With face-to-face interaction, the boss can hear the hesitation in his voice (paralingsuistic), and view his less than exuberant enthusiasm about the project (kinesics), allowing him to solicit the employee's opinion.



Our ever more reliance on technology to communicate may result in an eventual inability to interpret such nonverbal cues. We have not yet entirely substituted text messages and emails for face-to-face communication, or even split them 50-50, but in time to come such forms of communication will likely take precedence. Although Ms Shellenbarger doesn’t believe that texting affects one’s ability to read non-verbal cues, she admits that it’s annoying when people try to text and talk to you at the same time. This is in fact an example of how such people don’t realize the non-verbal cues that they’re sending; in this case, ‘I don’t care enough to concentrate on just talking to you’.


References
Sue Shellenbarger, 'Have we lost our ability to communicate?', http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/09/03/for-teens-has-texting-replaced-talking/

Use of Language

Language is a system used to encode and decode information, and is used to communicate meaning. Language, or rather the use of language, has come under the spotlight recently due to the now infamous Razor TV interview with Miss Singapore World 2009 Ris Low, during which she responded to questions about her fashion sense. Miss Low's diction in particular came under fire. Most average Singaporeans bemoan the fact that someone who speaks such poor English will be representing Singapore on the world stage, while pageant organizers and the chairman of the Speak Good English movement spoke up for her, citing the fact that she is just speaking the way most Singaporeans speak. I am not going to add to the numerous comments out there, but you may judge for yourself.




The various ways we use language can result in communication barriers or miscommunication. This is especially relevant in our increasingly globalised world. One does not even have to step out of Singapore to encounter a whole host of nationalities, who may not understand local slang. Your order for a 'Kopi Siew Dai' (Coffee with less sugar) may result in a blank stare from the newly arrived Chinese national taking your order at the Coffee Shop. Things can get even more complicated in English, where the same word may not mean the same thing to different people. If I say 'fixed', I may mean that it is permanent in nature, but you may interpret it as being repaired or mended. In Singapore, 'slang' is the local slang word for 'accent'.

To limit miscommunication, we need to ensure that our audience understands what we're saying, rather than merely focusing on the words we're using. This means that how we say something is just as important as what we're saying. Miss Ris Low came under fire not so much because of what she said, but how she had paused awkwardly, her enunciation, and her indecision about where to direct her gaze.

Any language used should be specific, and we should not be too rigid in our use of language. Others may not agree, but to me that means its alright to use a mixture of local slang and English(Or Mandarin, etc.) to communicate, depending on who we're talking to, such as if we order a meal at a kopitiam. Naturally you're not going to do so in a situation where you're expected to speak fluently, such as while giving a presentation. In such a case, it would be necessary to speak in standard English to ensure maximum understanding by the other party.

Perception

Perception is the way one regards, understands, or interprets something. What one perceives is the result of interaction between one's past experiences, including one’s culture, and the interpretation of what is perceived. The processes of perception routinely alters our interpretation of an experience or incident. When people view something while having a preconceived concept about it, they tend to take those concepts and see them, regardless of whether or not they are there. This problem stems from the fact that humans are unable to understand new information, without the inherent bias of their previous knowledge.

On September 9, The Straits Times published a forum letter from a Mr. Peter Huber, who expressed his opinion on why Singapore has a low birth rate. Essentially, he believes that young people in Singapore stay with their parents until they get married because they cannot afford a place of their own, and as a result do not learn skills necessary to become parents. This is in contrast to the West, where young people are expected to move out and get a place of their own once they graduate. Secondly, since their parents will object to them bringing home their lovers, they do not have the opportunity to have more relationships to find the right partner quickly. His perspective is an interesting one, suggesting that Mr. Huber is not local.

However, Mr. Huber does not seem to realize that the alien (to him) phenomenon of children staying with their parents until they are married is not just due to expensive housing. In Singaporean society, if children were to move out without starting a family of their own, it is tantamount to abandoning their parents, and is seen as a sign of disrespect; an unfilial act. Mr. Huber's preconceived notion that young adults who stay with their parents are strange, immature, and lacking in independence is therefore applied to all such Singaporeans, even though they do not have a choice in the matter, due to financial as well as cultural constraints. Furthermore, premarital sex and pregnancy is still frowned upon in Singapore, with the Ministry of Education emphasizing abstinence in their sex education programme. The government also attempts to discourage illegitimate children, by not allocating unmarried mothers the same benefits as married women-they are not entitled to maternity or childcare leave, and their children do not get any of the benefits allocated to children born in a traditional nuclear family. The culture of the land also dictates that young people only bring their partners home to meet their family only when they are in a serious relationship.

Due to his different cultural background and values, Huber’s perception of the issue differs greatly from that of locals, and Mr. Huber should not have attempted to judge a local situation by his own yardstick. If he had discussed the issue with local friends or colleagues, even casually, he would have better understood how things stand. After all, if Singaporeans are as obedient as Mr. Huber believes them to be, the Singapore government probably would not have to dangle so many incentives in an attempt to get couples to have more children.

Nevertheless, that is not to say that Mr. Huber’s perspective should be totally disregarded just because he misjudged the situation. He may not have offered a viable suggestion to the low birth rate issue, but his beliefs may just be a clue as to how people out there actually view Singaporeans. If we do not wish to be tarred by this same brush, we should pay attention to our behaviour, least we inadvertently end up reinforcing such viewpoints.