Super communication in our life

A rich, deep conversation is great, but it's rare in everyday life. Instead, we often find that in conversations - whether with our partner, family or colleague - we unintentionally get into pointless arguments without understanding each other.

How to avoid these pitfalls? To find out, science writer David Robson spoke with author Charles Duhigg about his new book, Supercommunicators: How to Unlock the Secret Language of Communication.

How do you define a super communicator?

I have a counter question. If you've had a bad day and want to call a friend because you know talking to that person will make you feel better, who comes to mind?

I immediately think of one of my best friends.

So she is a super communicator to you and you must be a super communicator to her. You both know how to listen to each other in a way that you can really hear what the other person is saying. And you know how to show you're listening. You know how to ask the right questions that really make you understand something about yourself and she shows you that she wants to be there for you.

Some people do this all the time. They can communicate with almost anyone. And these people are consistent super communicators. When I started this book, I thought that these people must be very charismatic or extroverted. But it turns out that it is just a set of skills or tools that anyone can master.

What does neuroscience tell us about the secrets of good communication?

When people communicate with each other, their bodies and brains are involved in the process. The pupils of the eyes begin to expand at almost the same speed, the rhythm of breathing begins to match. And the main thing is that the nervous activity becomes more and more similar, because they start to think alike.

The point of communication is that I can describe the feeling of an emotion or the experience of an idea, and you will feel some version of it. Our brains are becoming more and more alike.

In your book, you cite a great study by neuroscientist Beau Sievers that shows how super communicators change group dynamics.

It's really fascinating. He put people in groups and asked them to discuss some confusing video clips. He found that in some groups, people came together and formed bonds with each other, and their responses were much better.

Each of these groups had at least one person who was a super communicator. They asked 10-20 times more questions than an ordinary person. Some of their questions invited other people into dialogue, while others allowed them to reveal something meaningful about themselves. These participants also picked up on other people's gaiety or seriousness.

Most importantly, they realized that there are different kinds of conversations. Most of us think that the discussion is about one subject - for example, we talk about my day at work or about my child's grades.

But in reality, each discussion is made up of different types of conversations, and most of them fall into one of three groups.

There are practical conversations where we make plans or solve problems. There are emotional conversations where I tell you how I feel and I want you to listen and empathize. And then there are social conversations that demonstrate our social identities and how we relate to each other.

Sievers found that supercommunicators are so effective because they pay attention to what kind of conversation is taking place. And then they make everyone have the same conversation at the same time.

This reminds me of psychologist Anita Williams Woolley's research on collective intelligence, which found that how well team members can solve problems together determines their individual social sensitivity.

Absolutely. Social sensitivity, or empathy, really means that you simply pay attention to what the other person is telling you, what they need right now, and what conversation they want to have.

You claim that we should ask more "deep" questions. Why?

Deep questions ask a person about their values, beliefs, or experiences. When we talk about these things, we talk about who we really are. And such questions are very easy to ask, right?

If you're talking to a doctor, you might ask, "Why did you decide to go to medical school?" or "What do you like about medical practice?"

And these are deep questions because they invite the other person to tell something real and meaningful about themselves. And after such a question, it is easier for us to answer why we chose our work.

Well, then I want to ask you a profound question. What personal experience prompted you to write "Supercommunicators"?

I was working as a manager at the time - and the manager I was was terrible. I was good at strategy and logistics, but not at communication.

And it also affected my communication with my wife when I would come home after a long day at work and start complaining about my boss and my colleagues.

And she quite sensibly suggested something like, "Why don't you invite your boss to lunch so you can learn more about each other?"

And I, instead of hearing her, became even more upset. And this, in turn, upset her - because I suddenly shouted at her just for giving me advice.

When I told the researchers about this, they said that I was trying to have an emotional conversation and my wife was trying to have a practical one. And if you don't have the same conversation at the same time, you won't hear each other and you won't connect.

In psychology, this is called the matching principle: true communication requires you to have the same type of conversation.

What is the role of non-verbal communication?

We know that about 50% of how we send signals and receive information during a conversation is not related to the content of the words, but to everything that surrounds it: tone of voice, speed of speech, body language, facial expressions. Our brain has the ability to detect people's feelings by paying attention to two things: their energy and their mood.

Babies can pick up on their parents' mood before they learn to speak or understand words. But as we grow older, words take us so much, carry so much information, that we stop paying attention to everything else, and sometimes we have to remind ourselves of this.

In your book, you illustrated this with the sitcom The Big Bang Theory.

The Big Bang Theory was initially a complete failure, and the reason for its success was that the writers figured out how to make the characters express their feelings without words.

His heroes are physicists who are very bad at conveying their emotions or feelings. That's the humor - they're so clumsy it's funny. But the problem is, how do you write a sitcom when your main characters can't communicate what they're feeling or thinking?

After the disastrous pilot episode, the writers came up with a new recipe in which each of the characters shows what they feel through their mood and energy. So there's a scene in the new pilot where two physicists meet a beautiful woman, Penny, for the first time, and all they can say is "Hi," "Hi," "Hi."

But every time they say hello, they say it differently. They change the mood, they change the energy, and suddenly you know exactly how they feel. At first they are excited, then they feel really confused, and then they need to rest, although the word remains the same.

It is because their moods and energies change that we, as viewers, know what they are thinking and feeling. And the same goes for any conversation in real life.

How has writing a book about super communication changed your life?

Now, almost at the beginning of every conversation, my wife and I decide what kind of conversation we want to have. Liz will say something like, “Do you want me to help you solve this problem? Or do you just need to speak up and get it out?” And I do the same. And then we show each other that we're really listening by asking follow-up questions or repeating what the other person said.

Most importantly, we simply show and tell each other that we want a connection to arise between us. After all, when we find out that someone wants to create a connection with us, we begin to want it in return.