Rules of Communication:

These are rules of communication agreed upon by consensus in an interfaith religious group that some of my friends and I are in the process of forming. These are a work-in-progress, and any one member of the group can suggest a change.

Positive principles:

Rather than formulate the rules of communication merely as a list of things not to do, we start by presenting the key principles of how we want to to communicate:

• Use language accurately and honestly, stating only truths:
  • See and talk about each person as a whole person.
  • See and talk about shades of gray and complexities where they exist.
  • Speak from your own experience.
  • When talking about other people, focus directly on their specific words or actions.
• Use language and definitions based on societal consensus.
• Use I statements when talking about any beliefs or thoughts for which there may not be a consensus.

The Rules:

• Do not attach subjective negative labels to people or groups of people.
• Do not use black-and-white categories unless there is a consensus that something fits into simple categories.
• Do not use any "should statements" or statements expressing a similar sentiment (e.g. "ought", "supposed to", etc.).
• Do not make any statements about another person's thoughts, intentions, or motivations.
• Do not exaggerate.
• Do not state as fact something that is uncertain.
• Do not blame anyone for negative outcomes or take or assign credit for positive outcomes.

Examples, and Why:

Do not attach subjective labels to people or groups of people:

Examples of attaching subjective negative labels to groups of people:

• He is an idiot.
• The tea party movement is racist and xenophobic.

These sorts of statements can be harmful for a variety of reasons. For one, they are untrue or inaccurate, in the sense that they depict things in black-and-white terms that are actually more varied. For example, intelligence is complex, and nearly everyone has some areas in which they are more intelligent than others. Labelling someone as an "idiot" dismisses a person, going against the ideal of viewing each person as a whole person. The second statement is even more of a false generalization.

Labels like "racist" and "xenophobic" are not useful when applied to whole people: nearly all people have some degree of bias or prejudice against certain groups of people, and even people who identify as racist may have some tendencies to respect or value certain qualities in people of other races. Instead of labelling someone as an idiot, or as racist or xenophobic, it is more empowering and constructive to single out specific statements, actions, or abilities that led you to question a certain aspect of a person's intelligence, or that struck you as reflecting some sort of racism or xenophobia.

Do not use any "should statements" or statements expressing a similar sentiment:

Should statements, or their equivalents ("ought", "supposed to", etc.), are problematic in discussions for a variety of reasons. When discussing things in a group, global statements like "We should..." or "People should..." can cause people to become defensive if they disagree with the recommendation. This is true even when the should statement is encapsulated in an "I statement", for example: "I think we should..." or "I think people should..."

But even when should statements do not evoke a negative emotional response in anyone, they often are not the most effective way to communicate. For example, when a person asks a question like: "Should we do this?", they could have several different intentions in mind...they could be thinking: "I want to do this, is that okay with you?" or they could be thinking: "I don't know what to do in this situation, do you have any ideas?". People also use the word "should" to describe expectations...for example: "The data should turn out this way." which can often mean: "Based on my understanding of the situation, we'd expect the data to turn out this way." but it could also mean: "If the data does not turn out this way, we have a problem." Avoiding the word "should" forces us to be more specific in our communications.

Another problem with should statements is that they often represent a moral view of things. For example, people often use words or phrases like "should" or "should not" when they are communicating their own belief that a certain behavior is right or wrong. The problem with these statements is that they express personal moral beliefs, on which there is often no consensus, and they present it as a factual statement rather than an I statement. This can elicit defensive or negative reactions among people who share different views. Should statements often have the effect of turning personal opinions into things that sound like moral statements, for example, when people say: "She should not be wearing that.". By avoiding should statements, people not only avoid offending others or making them feel defensive, but they also help to separate their likes and preferences from their own personal values or standards. For example, instead of saying: "She shouldn't be wearing that." a person could say: "I don't like the way that outfit looks on her." or "I would not ever wear an outfit like that.", which communicate two slightly different, but related things, neither of which turn the person's outfit into a global moral statement.

The benefits of avoiding the word should and its equivalents include:

• Helping us to become more specific in our communications, voicing our own desires, opinions, and intuitions, and furthermore, separating true needs from wants.
• Keeping discussions of potentially controversial issues more positive, and avoiding conflict by avoiding the eliciting of defensive reactions when we tell people what they "should" do.

Do not make any statements about another person's thoughts, intentions, or motivations:

One fundamental reason behind the principle of not making any statements about another person's thoughts, intentions, or motivations, is that no one truly knows these things besides the person themselves, but, furthermore, that person is likely not fully aware of their own thoughts, intentions, or motivations. Talking about people's private thoughts, intentions, or motivations is not only highly speculative, but it has great potential to offend and escalate conflicts, especially when people attribute negative intentions to someone.

Even when you accurately describe a person's thoughts, talking about another person's thoughts can come across as invasive, overstepping a boundary, as people's thoughts are generally kept private. In some cases, talking about a person's thoughts can come across as invading in a person's psyche without their consent. An example of this could be saying something that "strikes a nerve", such as playing off a person's insecurity in a way that upsets them.

Rather than talking about a person's intentions or motivations, we can talk instead about their actions, and we can (when we are certain of them) quote their words. When discussing people's actions and words, we are more likely to remain truthful, because we are discussing the only aspects of that person with which we have direct experience: no one has direct experience with a person's thoughts, motivations, or intentions, besides that one person.

Limiting our statements to people's actions and words also respects peoples' boundaries: people's private thoughts remain private, and people are more likely to feel secure and comfortable in the conversation.

Do not exaggerate.

Examples of exaggeration:

• Saying "people have told me X." when one person told you X.
• Saying "always" when "most of the time" is more truthful.
• Saying "most of the time" when "some of the time" is more truthful.
• Using words like "very", "extremely", or "exceptional" when they are not the most truthful choice.
• Making a statement when it is only slightly true or barely true.
• Making an analogy to something that is grossly out of proportion.

When in doubt, to help determine if you are exaggerating, give yourself several options of words to choose between, including ones on either side of the word you initially chose. For example, if you said: "I found it very difficult.", you could compare this statement with: "I found it rather difficlut." or "I found it extremely difficult", or even the milder: "I found it somewhat difficult." Usually, when you actually consider each statement side-by-side, it is immediately apparent which one most accurately reflects reality.

Exaggeration, by definition, is untruthful, and represents an inaccurate use of language. Exaggeration can cloud decisions and discussions, and can cause escalation of conflict.

There are also benefits to erring on the side of caution, as far as exaggeration is concerned. The opposite of exaggeration is understatement. Understatement can be more likely to help people and discussions to reach the truth, or at least reach a respectful understanding of differing viewpoints, because understatement is more likely to reach people who are reluctant to believe something because it conflicts with their beliefs in some way. Understatement is particularly powerful as a way of nudging people out of black-and-white thinking: providing a very gentle counterexample is often all it takes to get someone to admit that their global statement (such as one involving always or never) is not 100% true.

Do not state as fact something that is uncertain:

The principle of not stating as fact something that is uncertain is a key principle in retaining a constructive atmosphere in debates of a practical nature, such as when discussing a course of action to follow in a group, building a set of rules or laws, or discussing politics.

Some common examples of these sorts of statements are:

• Statements presenting an interpretation of cause and effect, when the cause-and-effect are not 100% clear. Examples include statements like "Policy X caused economic effect Y." -- economists and political theorists frequently disagree on which policies caused which results, so in the absence of a clear consensus, it is more accurate to word such a statement as opinion, like: "I believe that Policy X caused economic effect Y."
• Statements presenting something as fact when there is no consensus on that topic. Examples include: "Life begins at conception." or "There is no God." More accurate statements would be: "I believe life begins at conception." or "I do not believe in God."
• Statements that imply a universal notion of "best", when there are different ways of measuring what is "best". Examples include: "That's the best Indian restaurant in town." or "The best way of approaching this is to..." These statements can be reworded as: "That's my favorite Indian restaurant in town." or "I'd be most inclined to approach this problem by..."

Do not blame anyone for negative outcomes or take or assign credit for positive outcomes:

The principle of avoiding blame and credit taking has two distinct rationales behind it. One is that, in most cases, cause-and-effect are complex and unclear, so any sort of assignment of blame or credit is a matter of uncertainty. The other rationale is that blame, even when cause-and-effect are clearly agreed upon, can create conflict or cause conflicts to escalate. Blaming a person can tend to make that person become defensive, thus discouraging them from taking responsibility.

Viewed alternatively, blame places responsibility on a person without their consent; we include the principle of avoiding blame so as to encourage people to take responsibility of their own accord.

Taking credit can also offend; if one person takes credit for something, or if someone assigns credit to one person, other people who contributed to the positive outcome can feel marginalized. The practice of taking or assigning credit can get people to focus on assigning different relative worths to people, which we want to discourage. When people are credited for accomplishments, it can also encourage these people to act on the basis of wishing to receive praise from others, rather than simply acting to achieve a goal that is desired or good. By refraining from assigning credit, we help everyone to remain self-motivated and focused on the positive goals, rather than becoming sidetracked by acting out of a desire to receive standing in a social group. We also want to prevent the formation of unhealthy social structures where there is a hierarchy of power in which people at the top take credit for the work of people beneath them.

It is good to praise people for their contributions, but as praise can be powerful, it is important to be conscious in our use of praise. We thus encourage people to praise people for specific contributions, rather than to globally assign them credit for some desired outcome that they merely played a role in achieving.

Comments are moderated. Follow Cazort.net's comment policy for your comment to be approved.