| The Fourth Step of Communication: Using Language to Relate to Others |
Originally published by Autism Asperger's Digest Magazine Using Language to Relate to Others In previous columns we explored the vital role that thinking about the people we are communicating with plays in successful interactions. How we relate to people is based on what we know about them: from prior memories (our “people files”) and through cues from the current situation. We also explored that we “think with our eyes” to assess a social situation. We watch others’ eyes to track what they may be thinking about (based on what they are looking at) and we also use our own eyes to provide social cues that we are attending to what is being said. The fourth and last step of communication relates to how we use the information gained from the other steps to relate to our communication partner(s). Interestingly, it is only at this last step that we introduce language! It is important to note that our language-based communication strategies vary greatly from one situation to another. Stop and think for a minute about how our social language varies. We use one communication style when answering a teacher’s question in a classroom, and another very different style when having a serious problem-solving discussion, and an entirely different style of conversation when hanging out with peers. Each situation has its own “communication personality” and associated “hidden rules” of communication. That said, no matter what the situation, the people who communicate most effectively with others monitor and adjust their language to demonstrate they are thinking about their communication partner. Those who speak, but only seem to be thinking about themselves or their own interests, quickly find it difficult to find people willing to talk to them. Diana is a bright, 6-year-old girl who has Asperger’s Syndrome. She is highly verbal, with an advanced vocabulary well beyond her age. Having worked with Diana previously, I knew she did not relate well to other people, even though she talked a lot. As I observed Diana’s speech pathologist (SLP) working with her, I noticed the SLP assumed Diana understood a lot about the communication process, probably because Diana talked so well. It’s a common mistake made with our higher functioning kids. We assume language equates to social understanding. It doesn’t. I wanted the SLP to get a clear picture of Diana’s lack of perspective taking while she was speaking, so I sat across from Diana at the table and asked her if she would like to talk about chemistry with me. Diana readily agreed, and began telling me all she knew about the subject. She appeared to be looking at me while she spoke, but I sensed she wasn’t really thinking about me. As Diana continued to talk I started looking around the room - obviously. Since she didn’t seem to notice I wasn’t paying attention to her, I slowly got out of my chair, walked to the door, went through the door, and closed the door. Diana didn’t skip a beat; she continued talking to my now-empty chair (according to the observing SLP). Diana was not “conversing” or “communicating” with me; she was doing what I refer to as “downloading information.” Adults may find it somewhat charming to listen to our students expound about a topic, but their peer group is far less interested in engaging with a person who does not seem to notice them and relate to them as individual people. To understand language-based communication and the related expectations we attached to it, we need to first explore our own personal communicative psychology. While we are quick to point out how “self-centered” or “ego-centric” people on the autism spectrum appear to be, notice that each one of us is actually quite ego-centric ourselves. We may “filter” how we relate to people better than those with social communication learning challenges, but we still want people to pay attention to what we are saying and be interested in our own thoughts and opinions. The people we choose to “hang out” or “play with” are typically people who make us feel pretty good about ourselves. Certainly our friends are people who do this. When someone shows active and sustained interest in us we usually feel better about that person. If we feel good about a person we think about him or her as “friendly.” Conversely, when we don’t feel good within an interaction, we make think of that person as “unfriendly.” Our social language helps us create deeper social emotional relationships. Or it separates us from them. Jacob is an intellectual high school boy with Asperger’s Syndrome who once stated that he “did not want to converse with anyone his own age because they (his peers) did not have anything to teach him.” Jacob was not aware that classroom discussions were very different from social conversations. To him, there was only one reason to converse: to learn something. Observe your own conversations with friends and notice how often you have a conversation that is of little intellectual importance. Your verbal exchanges probably relate more to shared experiences and observations about things (the weather, a new movie, a boyfriend, etc.) than they are about gaining scientific knowledge or intellectual insight. The purpose of our conversational exchanges is not to become smarter, but to feel emotionally connected with people in our lives. Jacob missed this point altogether, and subsequently, missed out on opportunities to connect with others. Even during intellectual discussions, however, people need to use the four steps of communication, consider another’s perspective and how the other person is feeling about the information shared. I have met a number of adults with AS who struggle to hold their jobs. They are technically smart and very capable of managing the tasks associated with their position. But they fall short on the social level. They don’t appear to show sustained interest in their co-workers. They spend far more time talking about their own knowledge than showing appreciation of another person’s knowledge. In short, they fail to relate to the people around them, even though they are actively “talking.” Because of this, they are not considered to be a good member of the “team.” The take-home message about the fourth step of communication is this: successful verbal communication is not the same as talking. True communication involves the ability to monitor and relate to what another person is thinking and feeling and adjust our language accordingly. It involves learning to show an interest in people when we may not be truly fascinated by what they are saying (we call this “doing the social fake”) and learning to pick our words carefully so as not to offend our communication partner (e.g. semantics). Language-based communication is a highly emotional experience. Our thoughts lead to emotions; our emotions lead to social memories, and these memories help us decide whether or not we want to include people in future discussions or conversations. While our students with social learning challenges may have related weaknesses understanding and responding to their emotions, they still feel the pain of social isolation. Even those who want to only talk about science and technology still desire someone to talk to - someone who shows a true interest in them. In our next column we will explore some concrete strategies to help our students make this social-emotional language connection. |