The common form of communication on our planet is language. In oral or written form. This allows knowledge to be passed on and only through this can common projects be carried out. Because we have so far been using this form of transmission, it is often examined how reliable this form of communication is. Can a correct transfer of knowledge to be passed on actually be guaranteed without distortion?
The meta-perspective
Suppose two people sit opposite each other at the table and start a conversation. Then you would assume that these two people only talk to each other. But is this really the case? For example, does person A1 really talk to person B1 as he really is? Or is it not rather the case that the person in question pretends to be something, A2, that he or she is not at all. Isn’t it true that the person plays a role that is often even forced by family, acquaintances, friends, profession or society.
From this angle the table situation already looks very different. Of course, Person B plays his or her own role just as well. And pretends to be something else, B2. If we now join the two pretended selves at the table, what will our conversation look like now?
Does the played A2-I actually speak to the played B2-I?
Wrong! Person A is aware that person B plays a role. If person A is smart, he or she will of course not fall for that. He or she sees through the situation and speaks to the B, B3, which he or she believes is really the other. That is, person A is not talking to the actual person B, but to what he or she believes person B to be, B3. This means that in every conversation between two individuals, three selves are present in each individual. As a rule, one has a conversation between one’s own perceived self and what one believes to be the other self. While there is still a real me of the other person!
This makes it clear that it is necessary to take the other person’s point of view in every conversation. And to see things with his or her eyes. It is therefore extremely important to speak with the other person’s real self in every conversation.
Also learn to read between the lines in books. We live in a world full of people. Man himself is closest to us and is the most suitable object of study. At the same time, man is the most interesting, most crazy, most unpredictable and most lovable object of study there is. Where we learn to understand other people better, we can learn to understand ourselves better. And in turn, our fellow man will be able to assess us better. In other words: there is no I without You! The person we are to someone else, the person the other person sees in us, does not correspond to our true self. The image that others make of us constantly moves and interests us. We try to gain clarity about the image that others have of us. We want to know how they see us with their eyes. We call this the meta-perspective.
Meta-identity
This new perspective of our thinking simultaneously creates a new level of identity. We get a new identity. We see ourselves as we believe others see us. We get a meta-identity.
Behaviour
Our behavior is to a certain extent based on experiences we have had in our lives. Both our experiences and our behavior are equally constantly related to others. And is also influenced by the behavior of our fellow man. Our behavior stands or falls with the right communication. Man is only as good as he can communicate.
The BWR triangle
The quality of our qualitative skill depends on understanding, warmth and reality. We think of this as the BWR triangle;
Concept
This is the ability to achieve an optimal conversation flow. By making the effort to see and understand things as they are seen and experienced by the conversation partner. This also means that if your conversation partner’s train of thought is interrupted, you can successfully bring him or her back. And let him close his thoughts.
Heat
By this we mean the relationship between the two conversation partners. Communicating from the heart. Do they have sympathy or antipathy?
Reality
Reality is what someone considers real, real.
The BWR triangle can of course become larger or smaller. The sum of BWR that someone has is the sum of his or her qualitative skills. And the BWR triangle can only grow if all three angles increase at the same time.
The warmth towards the conversation partner in question naturally varies from case to case. Because we know that every corner of the BWR triangle needs to grow, a non-biased attitude towards irritating interlocutors is urgently needed. With a negative attitude towards the partner, no communication can have a positive outcome. And often it doesn’t even happen.
A very difficult corner of the BWR triangle is reality. Because everyone has their own reality. Reality is what someone considers real, real. But should the same reality also be true for the conversation partner? For some people the police are a great friend because of certain experiences and for others the police are a great enemy because of other experiences.
So reality is always subjective. While, for example, one person may have had a very positive experience with the police. Because uncle officer helped grandma cross the street or turned a blind eye to a violation with a friendly face. The other person may have had some drastic experiences with the police. Such as radar checks, fines, arrogant officers or revocation of your driver’s license. It would certainly be difficult for both people to understand each other regarding the police. One person would be full of praise for the police, something the other probably cannot say. There would be two different realities.
But when you point the finger accusingly at others, there are 3 fingers pointing at yourself. In the communication process, it is wiser to say that you have expressed yourself incorrectly rather than to say that the other person has misunderstood you. This shows that you have the right attitude to develop yourself further.
read more
- Communication conflicts, open communication and listening