Elizaveta Friesem

Coronavirus and Nonviolent Communication

3/20/2020

The spring has come. I normally work on my computer from home a lot. So it sometimes seems that nothing has really changed. Birds are singing, rain is falling, trains are squeaking in the distance. But the life did change, and I now disagree with myself from the past, who wrote that there is no pandemic upon us. I do agree, however, with the point I made three weeks ago: blame is not likely to help us as we are waddling through this tunnel of uncertainty. Connection and empathy will.

See if any of these questions has recently crossed your mind:
- Why did they buy all this toilet paper?
- Why didn't you believe me before when I told you this is serious?
- Why are you panicking?
- Why aren't they thinking about my safety?
- Why is there so much contradicting information?
- Why are they trying to manipulate us?
- Why aren't they forcing people to stay at home?
- Why aren't you providing me with adequate support as I am moving my work online?
- Why did you decide to take this flight if you were not feeling well?
- Why?..
- Why?..
- Why?..

Before my classes started to move online, I was preparing for a fishbowl discussion with my students. One great video I found about this activity made a following suggestion: If you want students to have deeper conversations about complex topics, tell them to avoid the "Why" question. It is fine to ask: "Why is the sky blue?" But if directed towards another person, this word is often used to criticize their actions and opinions. And when our actions and opinions are criticized, we become defensive and often even offensive. This means the end of a civil conversation.

Am I saying that we cannot question other people's reactions to this crisis? Just to clarify, I do not suggest that. Critical thinking is an essential tool for figuring out any situation. But if we want to have a conversation with a person whose actions we are not entirely happy about, starting the interaction by suggesting that they are wrong might not be a winning strategy.

I have read and thought about empathy for a long time but it is not until recently that I discovered an approach that provides some concrete steps for putting empathy into action. It was created by Marshall Rosenberg and is called Nonviolent Communication (NVC). What I love about this method is that it allows us to express our feelings (even when they are very negative) without necessarily triggering the other side's defensive reaction. And if the reaction is triggered anyway (you cannot control people's interpretations), NVC teaches us to avoid escalating the conversation into a hurtful argument.

On the most basic level, NVC requires patience, vulnerability, and some memorizing.
1) You will need patience because you will have to rephrase your initial reactions into something longer than "Some people are idiots!" or "Why did you do this?". And if somebody else says triggering things, you will need patience to empathize with them instead of getting caught in their words.
2) You will need vulnerability because you will have to reveal feelings and needs behind your gut reactions. (If you have never heard Brene Brown speaking about the importance of vulnerability, I really recommend watching this video).
3) You will need memorizing because it turns out that there is a whole list of emotions we can be experiencing and needs these emotions are hiding. Many of us have little practice of putting these emotions and (especially!) needs into words. By the same token, we are also not well-trained in identifying feelings and emotions of others.

For example. As the whole world is transitioning online, you might not be happy about the way your supervisors are handling the situation. Maybe you want to use certain digital tools and it looks like they are against that. Maybe you want a different schedule. Think of your unique situation. Now imagine you need to talk to your supervisors or craft an email to them sharing your concerns.

According to NVC, one option is to start by formulating an evaluation-free observation of what if going on: "I heard that we are supposed to use <this tool> for working online now". Provide as many details as you can about what you know about the situation, but be careful not to insert any evaluations or interpretations.

Then you will need to specify what feelings you are experiencing about this situation. Pick your feelings from this list, and be as specific as you can. "When I am thinking about this transition, I feel <concerned, frustrated, sad, confused>." You want to make sure that you are not phrasing these feelings as blame. When people think they are blamed they often stop listening. Notice that when you say something like "I feel that this is a bad idea" you are expressing not a feeling (although the word "feel" is in the sentence) but an opinion that is also actually a judgement.

Here is the most challenging and vulnerable part. You need to explain your feelings by referring to needs that are not being met. You can choose unmet needs from this list. Maybe you need freedom to choose your own approach to working online, or more support from your supervisors, or more participation (in the decision-making process). Again, you want to avoid the language of blame. Focus on what you need and how you feel, not on what the other person did or did not do.

Finally, you want to phrase a clear positive actionable request that will show your supervisor how they could meet your needs in the nearest future. For instance, "I want to try <using this tool> next week and see how it goes" would give your supervisor a clear idea what they can do for you. It is better than saying something like: "Give me more choice" because this request is not very specific or "Don't make decisions for me" because negative requests often sound like blame.

This is the NVC approach in a nutshell. In order not to write a super long blog, I did not really cover what happens when the other person shows some resistance to your request (however wonderfully you phrased it). I hope this explains how you can share your feelings and ask for something in a non-threatening way by unpacking universal human needs behind your request. If you would like to learn more, Rosenberg's book Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life provides many important details. Alternatively, send me a message to elizaveta@mediaeducationlab.com and I will be happy to tell you more about this approach, for example over Zoom!

UPDATE: I have used Rosenberg's book to create a series of activities that can be used to have conversations about coronavirus using the principles of NVC. Try them with your students or colleagues! You can find the activities here.

0 Comments

Fear and Loathing (Coronavirus Edition)

2/27/2020

0 Comments

I happen to personally know several people who have been affected by coronavirus. To be more precise, they have felt the impact of the panic about the disease. (No names, but you know who you are!). One couple just arrived from a trip to China, and they have been forced to stay in a hotel for two weeks (hello Netflix). Another couple arrived from Hong Kong more than a week ago, and they decided to self-quarantine themselves on a road trip (that they were planning to do anyway). This Monday, my mom went to Italy (an adventure she had planned a while back) to find out that their famous opera house is closed and tourists cannot visit museums. Sad face.

Of course, coronavirus is real and some people did die. But the panic about it seems to be artificial. Reasonable precautions have given way to a shitstorm of fear and loathing.

By fear I mean the claims that the new pandemic is upon us. Some digging through online resources shows that coronavirus (in terms of people who got sick and those who actually died) is far from the proper pandemic scale. This fear does not seem warranted. But the current alternative is not necessarily better. Those who are not afraid too often turn to loathing - blaming and even hating those who say that coronavirus is a problem.

Let us step back and see what is going on here. People are biased (hey, we all are). People have a biological need to communicate with each other, which includes looking for information and sharing it (without necessarily checking one's biases in the process). People's relationships are characterized by the constant struggle for power. Looking for ways to make profit is a big part of this struggle. In the modern world, one can make profit by sharing information in certain ways (e.g., creating clickbait stories). On top of that, we are often unaware of some or all aspects of this dynamics.

The result:
1) Some people think that it's fine or necessary to spread stories that end up feeding into the panic.
2) Other people react to these stories and share them further.
3) This confirms the assumptions of (a) people who are afraid and (b) people for whom creating/spreading stories is a business.
And the vicious cycle continues, slowly taking on tornado proportions.

My two cents:
1) Let's be aware of how our biases work. Confirmation bias is a big one, of course.
2) Let's be aware of how online social networks work. For example, it is useful to remember that we create and thrive in our filter bubbles where biases reign supreme.
3) Let's be aware of how business models of mediated communication work. More fear and talks about an issue lead to more news stories from serious media outlets, and more clickbait stories from less reliable media outlets. So seeing more stories does not mean being in bigger danger of contracting a disease. It just means that the topic is a hot one right now.
4) This is an important one. Let's not be mad at each other for being afraid, being biased or doing what our business models dictate. All these things are very understandable.
5) At the same time, let's be responsible and remember that when people communicate, they influence each other. When WE communicate, we influence each other. You are I. All of us. That's true whether you are a journalist, a professional blogger, an internet junkie, or an occasional social media user.
6) Let's breathe in, breath out, and calm down. Peace.

0 Comments

On Cars and Empathy

2/19/2020

0 Comments

I have an irrational fear or cars. It's not a phobia (I guess...), although sometimes it almost seems to be.
Example 1: I only feel comfortable crossing the street either if it's green (well, white in the US) for me or when cars are far far FAR away.
Example 2: I sometimes feel uncomfortable on the sidewalk of a busy road with cars buzzing by so close to me.
Example 3: Driving makes me very anxious.
Example 4: I don't like being a passenger in a car that goes very fast on the highway.
Ok, it is probably a phobia after all.

I have searched my soul and memory trying to explain to myself (or incredulous others) why I feel this way. When I was a teenager, I once crossed a street just a few seconds before somebody walking behind me was hit by a fast-driving car. I remember turning around to see what happened. All cars stopped. A body was lying on the road (I don't remember any gory details). The driver who had just hit the person ran out of her car and was kneeling next to the body. I don't remember much beyond that, I guess I continued walking. I was wearing blue wide-leg jeans and a pink sweater. It was a warm sunny day.

Rationally, this explanation seems plausible after all. But when I tell the story, I feel nothing. In fact, it took me a while to make the connection between this experience and my fear of cars.

Another possible explanation comes from my observations of car-driving people from a position of a pedestrian, a passenger, or a car owner and user. What I keep noticing is that car-drivers are often not very nice to fellow human beings. Apparently, cultural differences exist, with some places being rougher than others. Yet overall, once an otherwise decent person gets into her or his metal beast and presses gas, they somehow change. And this scares me a lot.

It almost seems like when people turn into drivers, something happens to their empathy. They don't know how (or don't want) to see those they share the road with as humans worthy of respect.

Anonymity is probably a factor. Yes, all cars have identifying numbers, and you can technically see other drivers' faces through the windshield. Still, the metal mass stands in the way of the real human contact. We cannot really read each other's body language, and voices are substituted by honking, which is basically a sound of anger (although it is meant to be a warning). What kind of conversation can we have if the only thing we can do is scream without words?

We lack empathy when we struggle to see each other as humans with similar goals, hopes, and concerns. The perceived anonymity does not help. We are busy honking or cutting off other motorists, thinking that nobody will have time to write down our number or to see our face. In the process, each person's conviction that other drivers are just mean, crazy, or stupid is further reinforced.

I secretly hope that self-driving cars will solve all the problems. However, it is unlikely to be so. I don't believe in evil technology, but I do think that technology feeds into our biases and amplifies blind spots. No innovation can substitute healthy self-awareness and real human connection. Drive safe! Be kind to each other.

0 Comments

Humans and Their Habits: Gender (by a Visitor from Space)

1/10/2020

0 Comments

*This excerpt is my rough translation (and I mean very rough) from a scholarly work by #^!@%, who came to Earth for the purpose of conducting ethnographic research about humans. !&*$* is a pseudonym our guest chose after noticing that a random combination of symbols listed in the second row from the top of some computer keyboards is often used to express what should not or cannot be said. As you will see, this pseudonym will always contain five symbols but their combination will be different. This strategy is meant to reflect the fluidity and unpredictability of physical shape that characterize all inhabitants of our guest's home planet.

You can find the translated excerpt below. I edited it for brevity and added some comments in brackets.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

There is one aspect that makes humans so different from us, my reader [technically, on the home planet this work won't be "read" in the human sense of the word but I needed something to refer to the author's audience]. This aspect is called "gender". There is nothing like that on our planet, so you will need to use your imagination to follow the description below.

Human bodies are made up mostly of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus, as I mention in other chapters [this work is not only "unwritten" but it also cannot be read in a linear way; therefore, the words "chapter" or "section" do not fully reflect the work's structure]. Each human's body changes throughout the lifetime but some characteristics remain essentially the same. Because humans are so different from you and I, initially they looked all the same to me. I had to conduct long careful observations to start noticing individual differences. At the same time [don't get me started on their concept of time!... well, maybe someplace else], I realized that for humans themselves these differences can be dramatic. Indeed, color variances of "skin" (soft outer organ covering human body) that might be imperceptible for you, my reader, often determine how humans feel about each other and how they treat each other. In some cases, this variance becomes a matter of life and death. <...>

But let us get back to the matter at hand [*&#$& does not have hands, by the way]. The easiest way (in my opinion, at least) would be to describe gender this way.

All human beings emerge into this world (this is called "to be born") with a reproductive system which includes inner and outer parts and organs. <...>

[Here I took a liberty of adding a Venn diagram to illustrate the idea developed by &*!@@, since unlike my guests' "readers", my readers actually do have eyes.]

[Here @#$#! provided a detailed explanation of human reproductive system which I chose to omit for the purpose of brevity.] I understand that following all these details that are so detached from the life on our planet might be difficult for you, my patient reader. At the risk of losing important nuance, I think that we can describe the matter this way.

Some humans have penises [let's say, that would be the left circle in the diagram above]. Some humans have vaginas [the right circle]. Some have a combination of both [the intersection of the circles]. To procreate, one human with a penis [I am going to shorten this as HP] and one human with a vagina [HV, for brevity] need to be involved. Notice that each one of the two can have both [let's say, HVP; here @&^%$ refers to a possibility of two intersex individuals having a child].

Procreation is of utmost importance for humans. It is perhaps for this reason that, once a human is born (in some cases, even before that), everybody wants to know if this going to be a HV or HP. However - and this is the most interest part, which will also be quite challenging for my reader to comprehend - humans do not refer to each other as HV or HP. Instead, they use two words that are essential for the understanding of the human world: "man" and "woman" (or "boy" and "girl" when referring to a human between the time of birth and maturity, with important exceptions discussed in other sections).

[Here I am going to use another picture for my patient readers to follow.]

Same as humans can be roughly divided into HV, HP and HVP, they can also be divided into those who are called "men" and/or identify themselves as "men" and those who are called "women" and/or identify themselves as "women". Bear with me, my kind reader, as things are getting complicated [I can say the same to mine!]. Most humans tend to believe that HV is the same as "woman" and HP is the same as "man." It is for this reason that when a new human enters the world, they want to know: "Is it a boy or a girl?". As you can see, HVP find themselves at stark disadvantage in the very beginning of their lives. <...>

[I invite my reader to look at the second diagram. Everything above the line will be what @^&%^ refers to as "women" and below it - "men". So the top half of the left circle, the top half of the intersection, and the top half of the right circle will be humans who are called "women" and/or identify themselves as "women", with the bottom halves reserved for "men". It is not really half-and-half but I found this visual symmetry pleasing.]

To sum it up, there are some HP, HPV and HV who are known to others and/or themselves as "women" and some HP, HPV and HV who are known to others and/or themselves as "men". To put it in other words [as you might have already guested, the term "words" in case of %$#@* is also an approximation], there are some humans with a penis who are considered to be men. There are some humans with a vagina who are considered to be men. There are humans with a vagina who are known as women. There some humans with a penis who are known as women. Not to forget, a person with a penis and vagina can be considered a man or a woman, depending on many circumstances.

My reader, I hope you will agree with me that the situation is pretty clear. HP does not equal "man" and HV does not equal "woman." But it made me sad [yes, the feelings that inhabitants of our guest's planet can experience are surprisingly close to feelings of Earthlings] to notice that for human it is not clear at all. On the opposite, the divisions (HP, HV, HVP vs. "men" and "women") I outlined serve as a cause of major confusion that often leads to pain, self-doubt, and hatred.

[While I end the translated excerpt here, I want to clarify that it is connected to a longer discussion that spreads throughout other chapters and sections of this exceptional scholarly work. I might translate more of it if I have time in the future, and if **&$$ agrees to collaborate. It turns out that professors and researchers are all very busy no matter where in the Universe they happen to reside!]

0 Comments

No More TV Shows for Me

12/27/2019

2 Comments

mage credit: SciFiNow

It makes me sad to share this news with you: it looks like I have become unable to enjoy TV shows. Yes, it is true, and I allow you to feel bad for me.

Oh, how I used to love them! In fact, it is probably thanks to American TV shows that I am where I am right now, geographically, intellectually, and professionally.

In my twenties, back in Russia I spent hours binge-watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Deadwood, The Wire, Dexter, Dr. Who, Battlestar Galactica, Veronica Mars, Breaking Bad, and many many more. Those shows made me laugh and cry, they were my comfort, true friends of an introvert. Eventually, I used these experiences to generate a research idea that propelled me to a doctoral program in the United States. (My paper "Something about evil twins: American TV shows on Russian television" was never published but I am still proud of it.)

Then in came the doom: media literacy. Ok, ok, I probably should not make it sound so negative and dramatic. After all, I do media literacy education for a living! I guess it is just like the old saying goes: with much wisdom comes much sorrow. But I do prefer bittersweet knowledge to sugar-coated ignorance.

One important thing that I learned is that commercial media is very much shaped by the need to get profit. This is not necessarily a bad thing. We all need to earn our living somehow. People who work in the media industry are not an exception. But once I started noticing tricks used by TV shows to stay afloat, I simply could not unsee them.

Cliffhangers meant to make viewers come back for the next episode and season; neat structure within each episode with just enough room for commercial breaks; emotionally exploitative plot twists; and the worst offender of all: I shall call it "zombification".

I don't mean turning audiences into zombies. I don't believe in this hypodermic needle kind of shit, and neither do most of contemporary media scholars. I mean artificially keeping a TV show alive by slowing down its action, developing characters and plots in ways that betray the show's internal logic (and sometimes having characters sleep with each other in weird combinations, ugh). I hate to see show producers preferring for a show to get cancelled because it sucks rather than wrapping it up when it still makes sense.

Of course, from the profit point of view a show that drags on forever is a dream. But for me it has become a nightmare. I have seen too many shows with the great first season turn into nonsense (in fact, Buffy was an exception in this respect but it suffered from other flaws). Recently, I realized that it just make me too sad. I can't take it anymore.

P.S. This is just about me. There are some great TV shows out there and I actually envy people who can get a kick out of watching those. I think one can be aware of a show's commercial nature and still enjoy it! Alas, I can't do it anymore. Is this what getting old is all about?..

2 Comments

6 Strategies for a Successful Blog

12/27/2019

0 Comments

How to share your ideas in a compelling way? How to make sure that people will remember them?

There is an easy strategy to achieve these goals. And it is not a secret. Yet for some reason only a few do it properly. How so?

The strategy was described by Chip and Dan Heath in their super popular book Made To Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die.

Here is their model:

And now in my own words:

1) Make sure you have a simple idea to communicate.

2) Have something unexpected to share, otherwise your audience will get bored.

3) Be specific, because vague ideas are difficult to visualize and remember.

4) Make your message credible by using internal logic and external authority.

5) Appeal to people's emotions.

6) Tell stories (human brain loves them!).

It sounds easy enough, right? But I know from my own experience that to use these principles you need to be very determined and disciplined. I used to have a blog here, and I eventually started hating it. Why? I felt that my ideas were not entirely coherent and compelling, but I did not work hard enough to change this. Eventually I deleted everything. I knew that it was my fault. I knew that I need to be concise, to tell more stories. But I was not organized enough to follow through. I think a lot of people who have something interesting to share fall into the same trap.

Now I am giving myself a second chance.

My plan is to practice the SUCCESs model in every blog I write. For example, in this blog:

1) I started with a question to draw my reader's attention.

2) I mentioned something unexpected (having a successful blog is easy, yet few people do it).

3) I offered a simple idea: there are six strategies for achieving this goal.

4) I described these steps.

5) I increased credibility by appealing to an external authority (famous book).

6) I told a story about my old blog. (Not sure I did very well with this step as my story was not particularly vivid or emotional).

Clearly, there is plenty of room for improvement. But this is just the beginning!

0 Comments

Coronavirus and Nonviolent Communication

Fear and Loathing (Coronavirus Edition)

On Cars and Empathy

Humans and Their Habits: Gender (by a Visitor from Space)

No More TV Shows for Me

6 Strategies for a Successful Blog

Archives