A Pragmatic Guide To Communication & Change.pdf - NLP Info Centre

the communication process.
The contradiction between the two rules for listening has many ramifications. How often
have you encountered or participated in the scene illustrated below in which the angry
adult takes the child's chin in hand, saying, "Look at me when I'm talking to you!"? This
is often an example of conflict between the look-to-listen and must-look-away rules.
In stressful situations, "digitals" and "tonals" are usually less comfortable trying to
understand what is being said to them if they are being "forced" to make eye contact. This
is also generally true for someone operating out of the kinesthetic model. What these
people see distracts their
58
actually touch the people they are talking with. Just as the "visual" gains information
about a speaker by observing subtle movements, muscular tension and relaxation, the
"kino" gains the same information through touch and close proximity. Though people
operating out of either of the systems have the ability to use any representational system,
they will tend to rely upon their preferred system for most of their information.
As you can imagine, there is great potential for discomfort and miscommunication
between two individuals communicating from these two different communication
categories. Where the "visual" needs distance so as to get a "clear picture" of the process,
the "kino" wants to get close enough to insure a "good connection." However, the
moment the "kino" pushes past the comfortable distance range for the "visual," the
"visual" goes into stress. This stress is communicated - usually analogically through a
tightening of the skeletal muscles and a strain in the voice tonality- to the "kino" who
responds by also going into stress. Of course, in the stress situation, the "kino" will want
even more "contact," and the demands for closeness increase resulting in even more stress
for the "visual."
The processes described above all go on almost totally outside the awareness of the
individuals involved. This is a common pattern found in couples who come in for counsel
ing. The results are often verbalized in the following way:
Husband: "I never feel as if we have really connected, especially when we argue. I feel
like there's a great distance between us."
Wife: "He never seems to get the whole picture. He's always invading my space and
`pawing' at me while we're trying to have a serious conversation."
(Of course, these roles are just as often reversed.)
Anthropologist Edward Hall, previously cited, has noticed similar patterns within whole
cultures. In one article, Hall
59
points out that of the cultures he has studied, the Arabs prefer a ,inch closer
"conversational distance" than any of the others, especially compared to the typical
"American." His description of their behaviors is an interesting blend of social constraints
(see Chapter I) and representational systems.
Overall, what they're doing is coding, sort of synthesizing, their reactions. They
say to themselves, "How do I feel about this person?" In contemporary American
terms: "What kind of vibes am I getting from him?" They are also responding to
smell and to the thermal qualities of the other person. We talk about someone
with a warm personality. This is literally true, and there is [also] a very cold fish.
This is the person who draws heat from you. So they're picking up thermal,