In my study of learning styles, I came across the whole to part and part to whole concept. As with all learning style paradigms, this has a strong connection to communication styles, and it particularly intrigued me because I could immediately identify with it.

I am a whole-to-part learner: I need to understand the overarching concept before getting the details. Moving in the opposite direction (receiving the details first), leaves me confused and feeling adrift. Those who are part-to-whole learners need to take in the parts that lead to the whole concept they are learning. Being presented with a whole concept first leaves them overwhelmed because the concept seems arbitrary.

I often want to know what a movie or book is all about before encountering it. I don’t mind hearing how it ends . . . in fact, I want to know the ending so I have an organizing concept and will often read the last part of a book first. The unfolding process is essential for those moving from part to whole and provides much enjoyment. Knowing the punch line from the start spoils the fun.

How does all of this relate to communication styles? Here’s an illustration: Julia is a very active, hands-on sixteen-year-old. She loves sports, doesn’t like to read, has a strong work ethic, is good with people, and is distractible. Because of the distractibility, her parents and teachers are always trying to get her attention, which they do by explaining things step by step. This seems logical—and it is—but it doesn’t work with Julia because she is a whole-to-part learner. She needs the punch line first and not work toward it.

Saying, for example, “Julia, this is probably the biggest event of the year for your mother, so we really need your help” gets her attention. Giving her a specific task to do (“Julia, we’d like you to tidy up the patio and then pick up some stuff in town.”) doesn’t. This approach is specific and incremental, which can help some who are easily distracted, but for a whole-to-part person like Julia, the requests seem random. Getting Julia’s attention by giving her the bottom line—the larger concept—first is more effective. She needs to know what this is all about before she can get connected to it.

The whole-to-part and part-to-whole axis is another tool for achieving effective communication that I’ve shared with many parents, couples, and business leaders who have found it useful. As always, though, it is best to understand how it works for you before applying it to others in your relational world.

We have many opportunities to observe the communication styles of public figures and draw conclusions about them from what we observe. Because these individuals present themselves in public forums, however, we see them only in a limited context. They may all appear to be very outgoing, for example, but that is likely not true.

President Obama is known for his exceptional ability to give a speech, an ability well accepted even by his critics. He has been interviewed on television many times, so we get to see him in those circumstances as well as in press conferences and other settings. Because of these varied opportunities, we may think we know him and draw conclusions about him as a person.

As one who is constantly observing communication and trying to understand the relationship between content and process, I’ve become intrigued by the comments of pundits about Mr. Obama’s presentation of himself—his public communication style. A general agreement has Mr. Obama cool and level headed, thinking issues through carefully and not reacting spontaneously. A lack of passion, however, is something for which he is often criticized.

I frequently hear and read commentary questioning the President’s enthusiasm, intensity, and passion. Frankly, I am taken aback. To me, the President’s passion for many things is strong. His resolve is palpable and he is often very pointed in his remarks, leaving no doubt where he stands. Therefore, I have struggled with the difference in the assessment from the pundits versus my own.

So here’s my analysis.

It’s often assumed that politicians need to be interpreted by commentators, so the audience can understand what politicians really mean by what they say. I’ve watched many news people trip over themselves after a presidential speech trying to get at what was meant. With Mr. Obama it isn’t necessary to play the let’s-figure-out-what-he-really-meant game. He literally says what he means.

My second point has to do with our confusion about the integrity of politicians. We generally accept that politicians have questionable integrity. We allow them to fudge numbers and over or understate policy positions. As long as they stay within certain accepted bounds, however, we cut them some slack. President Obama is uncomfortable with that norm. He constantly strives to maintain integrity, so he chooses his words carefully to say what he really means. This contrasts with the style of most politicians, which is to say what they believe we want to hear so we will like and support them. We sense the difference, but it is hard to define concretely. This confusion leaves us uneasy.

Finally, we struggle to identify the President’s passion because his affect is not expressed in typical political style caricature. His affect is congruent with his nature, so the fluctuations are not an act but real expressions of his feelings. Unfortunately, we are accustomed to very stylized affect and word choice in our politicians. The President doesn’t do this.

President Obama acts like a normal human being. It’s pretty simple, but politicians don’t usually do that. They develop personas to meet public expectations. Their affect is part of their persona and fits what we have come to expect. So when the President has that look on his face—with precise words to say how utterly important something is, how committed he is to seeing it through, and why it matters in the larger scheme of things—we get confused. He is talking like a real person to us and treating us like real people, too. I do not mean this sarcastically, but it is novel.

This is not a political statement and has nothing to do with my agreement or disagreement with the President’s policies or actions. Although I’ve said he acts like a normal human being, I don’t mean to downgrade any of his exceptional qualities. He has many and these are well known. Getting back to his communication style (at least his public style), he actually exhibits a great deal of balance and strength in his use of words, affect, logic, empathy, reflection, imagery, and body language. This balance, along with his fine mind and sense of passion, allows him to be an exceptionally effective communicator.

Like many, I’m drawn to reading research and opinions about the state of boys and girls in today’s world and which sex is struggling more. It’s a question I’m not going to answer both because I don’t think it’s a particularly helpful question and because I don’t think it can be answered.

To see the differences clearly, we could make a chart showing the good and bad elements for both girls and boys. For example: More boys have ADHD, more girls have low self-esteem. Boys have higher SAT scores in math, girls have better verbal communication skills. Let’s not take our foot off the feminist accelerator or girls will get marginalized. Let’s not forget the high school drop out rate for boys. . . . To do this thoroughly, we’d need to weight the elements to find out which sex has it worse, but doing that, I’m sure, would devolve into some kind of political warfare. How could it not?

Answering the question doesn’t help us focus on the real issue: What is it that all kids need to thrive in today’s world? Is it really so different, what boys and girls need? I don’t think it is. Should we pay more attention to our girls’ evolving self-esteem than our boys’? Should we work harder to keep boys in school than girls? Of course not. What we do need to do is pay careful attention to the individual needs of each child.

I recognize that there are differences between males and females, but we are more similar than we are different. I’ve seen numerous charts that list the characteristics of men and women that focus on opposite needs. For example, in the male column it might say “autonomy,” and in the female side “connection.” But don’t we all need connection and autonomy? The only difference is the amount and the type—and those are individual differences, not gender ones. Putting all men and all women in classes by themselves discounts the commonalities and sets up an us/them mentality, . . and don’t get me started there.

Girls and boys: they need the same basic things when it comes to their home and school lives. The kind of care and education they need is not the rocket science part of it. The really hard part has to do with the negative forces in society that interfere with meeting those needs.

We know a lot about child development, good parenting and good teaching but we haven’t found a way to systematically implement these best practices. Politically and economically we have not found the will to do what’s right. If improving the lives of our children was important enough in our society, we would not be competing for resources on behalf of boys or girls. There would be no need because we would indentify the individual needs of kids and help them in whatever way is necessary—male or female.

I could be glib and say, “at the beginning,” but that’s the point. Where is the beginning of any story? I spend a lot of time listening to stories that begin with, “Here’s what happened . . .” When two (or more) people are involved, there are usually related but different accounts. Of course, most of us try to establish that our account is the accurate (real) story, and experience tells us that this process generally goes nowhere and continues to breed defensiveness.

Mediation and counseling help individuals to see that each person has a perspective and experiences the situation somewhat, if not vastly, differently. This can be frustrating for the conflicted parties but necessary to constructing a path forward. Helping individuals recognize what the situation looks like from the other’s point of view cuts down on the right/wrong approach to reality. Also, by clarifying motivations and intentions, there is more opportunity to foster understanding. All of this rounds out a fuller picture of what happened. Finally, it brings overlap in the stories and builds common ground.

Recognizing that each person is starting the story from a different point in time often goes unnoticed. Here’s an example: Lily and Brad had an argument about getting the kid’s lunches ready for school. Brad usually does this but asked Lily if she would fill in for him because he had to leave early for work the next day. Lily agreed. In the morning, as Brad was rushing out the door, he made a comment about what he had in mind for the kid’s lunches, which angered Lily. She snipped at him, and Brad left for work unhappy.

When they tried to deconstruct the story later, they got into a predictable argument based on the above facts. Lily talked about Brad blindsiding her at the last minute with expectations when she was doing him a favor. Brad, who thought he was being helpful by suggesting lunch food, believed Lily was not being very grateful.

In counseling, we discovered another layer to the story—where each person located the story in time. Brad’s story began well before he asked Lily to make the lunches. It began with a plan two months earlier about the food budget and how they were going to economize. What he quickly observed on the way out the door that morning disrupted the plan. Lily, on the other hand, started the story two days earlier when she realized how stressed Brad gets when he has a deadline at work and the subsequent impact on the family. Aha.

Clearly Lily and Brad approached the lunch situation in a different context. This is an extremely common occurrence but one we often don’t account for when we are in conflict. As a practical matter, it usually helps to know where your own story surrounding a conflict begins and then perhaps to ask the other person where their story begins. Doing this thoughtfully and carefully provides an opportunity to say “Oh, now I see what you were going through,” which is a good way to begin understanding one another better and establishing a mutual problem-solving platform.

Recent research tells us that brief encounters (communication) with neighbors and other community members have a direct bearing on our mood and sense of well being. In fact it has greater immediate impact on us than those more intimate in our social worlds.

This informs us that connection and communication with others really does matter. This is not new information, yet it reinforces their importance in our daily lives, even when the contact appears to be more superficial. A smile from a passer by or a frown from a store clerk can have a powerful impact on our mood and sense of well being.

Something is created in these encounters that has energy. The experience is palpable—we feel it. Have a good conversation with someone and you have a very positive “cellular” experience. It’s infectious; it radiates in a manner that others notice and are affected by it. We are filled with positive energy: bad moods can dissipate, our outlook on life is renewed, something within us shifts.

Negative communication can hurt, resulting in anger and/or sadness; and we can carry this feeling for a long time, often remembering it for years. These experiences can stick to us, even when we know that what was said is not true. The energy stays with it.

It is unmistakable that communication is a form of energy that can be both positive and negative. Communication is a force in our lives that we must recognize has power, and power carries with it responsibility. Although, we commonly think of communication as words, communication is more than words. With over fifty percent of communication being non-verbal, our actions toward others require the same care. Using energy wisely in our world today is a responsibility that we must all take seriously.

The world of childhood seems far away to some, and yet to others is so accessible. We were all once children, but when we cross the divide into adulthood, our memories reconfigure. For some the connection to childhood, and thus to children is very natural. Others find it foreign and awkward. Connecting to and communicating with kids, and being comfortable in their presence can be confusing.

Here are ten principles to keep in mind when relating to kids.

1. Remember what it is like being a child: Pick an age. Remember who your teacher was in that grade. How did you feel being around that teacher? What did you like to do when you were playing by yourself or with other kids? Try to listen to your voice. Imagine yourself outside walking up to your house, ready to go inside.
2. Be curious about what lives in the child’s imagination: Think about a child you know. What do they enjoy doing? Which books do they like? Have they told you about their dreams? What would they like to be when they grow up?
3. Listen a little bit longer than you think you should: Learning to ask open ended questions, rather than yes/no questions can help. Don’t be afraid of silence (take a deep breath). Share something (briefly) about yourself that relates to the discussion.
4. Don’t be afraid to answer questions directly: Sometimes this means saying, “I don’t know.” If it’s a question that seems pretty sophisticated for the child, asking how the question came up can help clarify the child’s need. Don’t be afraid to come back to the question after you’ve had the initial discussion to offer further clarity or find out how the child processed your answer.
5. Don’t be afraid of humor: Be careful of sarcasm, but kids enjoy humor. The friendliness of humor can be relaxing and communicate acceptance.
6. Think about how the child perceives you: Adults represent authority to kids. Their relationship to the authority figures in their lives will likely carry over to their perception of other adults. Does, or could, the child perceive you as an authority figure? This can strongly influence the child’s comfort level with you.
7. Think of how you can relate person-to-person: Although you are an authority figure, can you genuinely project a feeling of equality to the child? Can the child sense a feeling of respect and emotional safety when communicating with you?
8. Consider what your eyes say when you meet and greet the child: How we see other people is reflected in our eyes. Children are very sensitive to this phenomenon. When you are looking at the child, do you see a person or just another kid or a cute little creature?
9. Let the child know who you are: Are you in the role of adult or are you able to be yourself? Do you project infallibility or another human being with gifts and flaws, clarity and uncertainty? Being real is something kids sense and respect.
10. Notice what the child is noticing: This is critical, especially for parents, and may be the most important part of parenting. It is part of paying attention—noticing what the child is noticing—and acknowledging that observation. It starts in infancy with comments like, “Oh, you heard that sound, didn’t you. That was the door bell.” Noticing and commenting in this manner maintains the emotional connection with the child and gives them a frame of reference for their observations. Children are in a constant state of making sense of the world around them. It is our job to participate in that task in a thoughtful and sensitive way.

This is by no means a comprehensive list. It is offered to help stimulate your awareness and suggest ways of fostering better communication with kids. It’s always about the relationship, and relationships always challenge us.

Sam’s wife, Beth, made a simple statement, or so she thought. “Let’s put in a walk-in shower.” Sam was immediately sour on the idea. He grimaced and said it wasn’t a good idea. This upset Beth and she responded strongly. “Why are you always so negative when I make a suggestion?” Sam quickly responded, “Because it’s just one more thing I have to deal with.” “But why can’t we just talk about it?” Beth replied.

Sam and Beth were both exasperated by the conversation and withdrew. Later that day, they were able to agree that the pattern of this discussion was all too familiar and needed to change. So bringing it to their next counseling session seemed like the safest and most hopeful route to take.

Beth was the plaintiff. “I just want to bring things up that we can discuss together reasonably and rationally.” Sam got in a dig, “You mean that you want me to agree to what you want to do!” “That’s not fair,” Beth replied. “Well, you’re not the one who will be doing the work,” Sam said.

Sam is a hands-on guy who can build or fix just about anything. He’s also someone who needs a lot of time to clarify thoughts and feelings. Beth, on the other hand, thrives on interpersonal engagement and also has strong visual skills. She has stronger verbal skills than Sam, as well.

I asked Sam what prompted his initial reaction to Beth bringing up the walk-in shower. He told us that when Beth brings up something like the shower, he doesn’t just see the shower, he sees (visual-spatial) the whole house. He instantaneously sees the plumbing and electrical systems, as well as the structural elements of the building. Not only that, but he pictures each and every other part of the house which needs care, attention and fixing.

Beth was, indeed, taken aback. She said, “Sam, why are you thinking about all of those things when I just brought up the shower?” She was genuinely puzzled. Beth continued, “Why do you put yourself through all that?” Then Sam said what we’ve all said at one time or another, “I’m not trying to do it, it’s just how I am!”

Sam doesn’t have any choice about the complex images that come into his mind, but he does have a choice about how he responds and what meaning he gives it. Working with his natural communication style helped him (and Beth) understand that Sam really does see the whole picture immediately, and, at times, that is overwhelming. Learning to identify the feeling part—being overwhelmed—was key for him in managing his reactions better. He learned to tell Beth when he felt overwhelmed. For her part, Beth recognized that Sam sees everything at once, so she can ask him to describe the picture, giving her a better idea of what’s going on.

In addition, Sam discovered that although he’s seeing everything at once, he can engage Beth in talking about priorities (logical) and they can make decisions together. He also realized that he wasn’t giving Beth enough space to think out loud (interpersonal) and share her enthusiasm. Being so quick to react because he was feeling overwhelmed, he squashed any opportunity for her to dream out loud.

When communication gets hijacked by our emotional reactions, it hurts the relationship. Sam and Beth each felt invisible to the other. The result was beliefs that hurt: I’m not loved, cared about, or valued. None of this was true, but it felt that way when the emotional reactions overshadowed the truth. By accounting better for their stylistic differences, they developed communication structures that gave them a real opportunity for connection, collaboration, and understanding. This, of course, strengthened their relationship.

My early experience in counseling was primarily with children. Working with children requires flexibility and creativity, and through studying the work of Clark Moustakas and Virginia Axline, I learned that communication in play takes many forms—words, behavior, symbols, and feelings. And, of course, there is the primacy of the working relationship. This nuanced and textured experience taught me to listen with my whole body and set the stage for further exploration into the world of individual communication styles.

Through this exploration, I incorporated learning style theory and the theory of multiple intelligences into my counseling approach. Counseling is a form of learning—learning about one’s self, relationships, and life itself. My focus on learning encouraged me to pay attention to the details of how others expressed themselves and absorbed information. Learning styles and multiple intelligences gave me a way to work with these details and explore different ways of connecting to others and listening to their stories.

Related to this exploration were questions about how counselors view human behavior and what choices we make in trying to be helpful (questions, comments, interventions). So, I began questioning observations I was taught to make and the conclusions drawn from them. If someone has difficulty reflecting on their feelings, for example, does it mean they are avoiding something or does it mean they are more intrapersonally oriented and need time and space to reflect before achieving clarity? If an individual has difficult putting words to their experience, is it because of mental confusion or do they think primarily in pictures and find words inadequate to express the richness of their fluid, visual-spatial world?

This led to other questions. Were those who are successful using gestalt techniques rich in imagination and kinesthetic intelligence? How helpful is it for someone more linguistically oriented to engage in this type of therapy? Is cognitive-behavioral therapy best suited to those who are strongly logical and linguistic? Does hypnotherapy work best for those who have strong visual-spatial skills? These questions are absent from the discussion on evidence based practice. In that discussion, a one size fits all model is implied.

I don’t have solid answers for these questions based in traditional scientific methodology. I have, however, used my experience (intuition and educated trial and error) to guide me in exploring these issues with clients. Through this process I’ve learned to be more flexible in my approach and make fewer assumptions, while I explore how to better connect with and use the natural language of those I’m trying to help. This approach provides natural validation to clients, encourages collaboration, decreases pathologizing, and encourages mutual creativity.

A recent question in the Communication Lab prompted the writing of this piece. The questioner was confused about how he “used” the interpersonal and intrapersonal components. He clearly sees himself as intrapersonally oriented, yet with his wife (also strongly intrapersonal), he is more talkative, much more interpersonally driven. Specifically, he initiates most of the let’s-sit-down-and-discuss-this requests, tries to share more about what he’s going through, and asks questions about her process. This caused him to question his understanding of the communication styles framework.

The communication components aren’t solid blocks arranged in an orderly and predictable fashion. Yes, they are building blocks in a sense, but they are more liquid than solid. They’re like muscles—some employed more often than others, perhaps, and all necessary to shape your communication style. We all employ the seven communication components whether we are aware of it or not. Our strengths, however, stand out in a way that makes them more consciously identifiable. In the situation described above the questioner easily identifies his intrapersonal component because it is so active and a part of his identity. Yet with his wife, he draws on his interpersonal component to foster connection and communication . . . and how wonderful that he does, or the risk of too much silence and distance could cause real emotional confusion and pain.

We can and do adapt our communication style to our relationships, and it’s important that we do. Often we do it in subtle, intuitive ways that we may not be aware of. This is very common in the workplace and can be related to the role one has and what the job requires. You may find it helpful—and interesting—to look at the communication requirements of your job and how they match your natural strengths. [There is an activity in the Communication Styles Workbook designed for that purpose.] This also gives you a good opportunity to see how your style may not work so well for you on the job, a topic I want to address in a future Thinking Out Loud piece.

How we use the components of our communication style ideally is a fluid process: strengths we employ at home and at work may be very different. Several people have commented that at home they tend to think out loud, whereas at work it wouldn’t be appropriate, and often the requirements of your job draw on a particular component to a degree that it might not be very active by the time you get home. Think, for example, of a massage therapist (kinesthetic component) who tires of making physical contact at work and doesn’t need or want much by the time s/he gets home.

The relationship always plays a role in how our communication style components configure. The communication style of the other person, the roles we are in, the setting and circumstances—all these factors influence how we express ourselves, although how we receive information stays largely the same.

Willie is a story teller. If you ask him a question, even a simple question, you are likely to get a story. It drives Ellen crazy. “Why can’t he just give a simple answer to a simple question?” she says with exasperation. “If he asks me a direct question, I give a direct answer—yes or no.”

This is not an uncommon communication issue in relationships. I’ve heard the same basic frustration raised by parents and kids, workplace colleagues, and others. It is easy to identify with the one who just wants a straightforward response. We’d all like communication to be simpler, but it isn’t, a sentiment that is probably repeated in each of my “Thinking Out Loud” pieces. There is no getting around it, interpersonal communication is a complex process.

Back to storytelling. Storytelling is a fixture of culture. Stories allow us insight that we would not otherwise get with simpler, declarative statements. We need stories to understand the complex relationships in the material and non-material world. We experience stories in dance, music, visual art, literature, and literal storytelling.

For some people, there are no simple answers to questions. When they hear a question it opens the doorway to connections invisible to the eye of the questioner. Inside that doorway are many other doorways related and unrelated to the situation at hand. How to choose which door to open in the discussion becomes a creative and complex process.

Ellen acknowledges that she enjoyed Willie’s stories in the earlier part of their relationship. In fact, it was part of the interest and attraction. She saw it as a way to know Willie better because he was allowing her access to his inner world, expressing himself and being creative. But now, she often finds it frustrating. This is not uncommon: an attractive quality becoming troublesome in intimate relationships. As a relationship becomes more textured and complex, behavioral characteristics can become challenging.

Ellen questioned Willie’s motives for storytelling: Is he trying to be controlling? Is he condescending? Does he want to confuse her, so he doesn’t have to give a straight answer? The questions and their implications troubled her. As we explored these concerns and each person’s communication styles profiles, it was clear that Willie has a strong connection to the linguistic, visual-spatial, and intrapersonal components—not uncommon for storytellers. Ellen is much more oriented to the logical, linguistic, and interpersonal components.

The elements of style create a foundation for self-expression, which is not so much a matter of choice. Willie tells stories at work, at home and in social situations. He tells good stories, as Ellen remembers, but there are times when stories seem cumbersome and don’t lend well to the back and forth (interpersonal) that Ellen seeks.

Understanding and accounting for these individual differences and not criticizing one another’s style offers a beginning to fostering better communication. Once Ellen understood that Willie wasn’t trying to put one over on her, she could be more patient and at times ask him to be more succinct. Willie learned to be more flexible by giving “summaries” when possible and appreciating that his storytelling sometimes was cumbersome.