#2042 Remedial Reading
Todays post is dedicated to Gina, an avid reader.
I have known a few people in my life who possess a genuine talent for hitting the wrong note. I titled today’s piece, Remedial Reading, because this uncanny ability to consistently enter a conversation and leave everyone either scratching their heads or downright offended has to do with reading comprehension; albeit a different kind of reading. Be it email, text, phone, video, or live, reading collective sentiment is a skill.
I believe this tone-deafness comes from either a willful disregard for others, as with a narcissist, a lack of attention, like with a multitasker or surface skimmer, or, lastly, someone who only views life through their own myopic lens.
“Reading the room,” as they say, means seeing the messages implied as opposed to hearing the words. We know that the Mehriban model was the first to calculate this, saying that 55% of our message is delivered with body language, 38% via our tonality, and only 7% attributed to the words themselves. There have been many other studies over the years that assign different values to these three categories. Still, all have a similar emphasis on body and tonality and a deemphasis on words.
This concept is easy to understand if we think about sarcasm. In sarcasm, the body and tonality define the words used and give them opposite meaning.
Reading the room in its simplest form means seeing slumped shoulders, a hanging head, perhaps a little color in the neck and cheeks, and downcast eyes when someone replies “I’m good” when you ask how they’re doing. But it gets more complicated in larger groups and, as so often happens today, when we only have written words to read.
Still, it is important to take a beat and look for the implication behind a written message or the overriding theme of a group message. If the conversation is about the gorgeous tomatoes available in August at the local farmers market, it might not be appropriate to rant about ICE, migrant farm workers, and our immigration policies even though that is what fresh tomatoes make YOU think of.
Your beliefs are your own, and however you connect the dots to get to ICE when I talk about tomatoes is your thing. It may even be relevant in another conversation about fresh produce, but it is a square peg in a round hole in this conversation about the bountiful local tomatoes!
Would you walk into a Phish concert wearing a MAGA hat?
It’s like that when you offer a statement that is incongruous to the mood of the conversation. Not every thought prompted by what you hear needs to be articulated.
Here is an easy example. I volunteer at the local SPCA. I am also an avid hunter and an enthusiast for eating wild game and foraged foods.
The SPCA puts out emails daily about injured animals that need transport to the centers that can heal them. Logically, if an injured duck or squirrel doesn’t live, it would be a good idea to cook and eat them as opposed to tossing them in the trash. At the very least, they should be put back into nature so animals who live on carrion can do what the universe intends.
Knowing that my audience is hellbent on saving said duck or squirrel. Do you think if I responded, “Gee, sorry, I cannot make it now to drive that mallard to the bird hospital, but if he doesn’t make it, can you put him in the freezer for me? I love wild duck breast on the grill!”
You cannot argue that eating that deceased duck is better than tossing it in the trash but being right is irrelevant in this context. You’ve got to know your audience, anticipate the effect of your message, and decide whether it fits right now in this spot. This thinking happens in a nano-second. I have often said the pause between thought and speech defines you. That micro-hesitation is an ongoing part of live or written communication. Over time, practice turns this into an unconscious habit. It becomes an intuitive alignment with the spirit of the conversation, allowing you to learn from and value others—rather than becoming the person they talk about, pejoratively, behind your back.