#1015 Acting and Communication

Brain Food for Pioneering Spirits: How does our communication influence our own actions and the actions of others? That’s the question we explored in Room #1015 of the Deep Talk Club, under our overarching theme of “Action.” Listen in on the examples that came up and the perspectives that emerged in dialogue…

Note: This session was recorded live in German as part of the Deep Talk Club, so the video above is German-language audio only. What follows is an English translation of the conversation, lightly edited for readability — the back-and-forth between the moderator and participants is preserved, but the original timestamps and speaker names have been left out.

A very good morning to you all. Today, as announced, we continue with acting and communication. The question we want to explore is: how does our communication influence our own actions and the actions of others? I’m really curious how this room will unfold. You’re warmly invited to join and help open this space for reflection together, looking at it from different perspectives, bringing in impulses and experiences, so we can hold onto whatever insights emerge today. We can of course also tie back to interim results and insights from other rooms, especially around communication, which we’ve touched on before in connection with reflection and thinking. Today the focus is specifically on acting, and making that connection. Quick reminder, the room is recorded the whole time and published afterward, so joining means you’re agreeing to that. With that, let me mute myself and see who’d like to open the round with me this morning.

Good morning. My day started with a very particular kind of communication — I burned myself on a hot pot handle, and out poured a flood of words that, in terms of their tone and clarity, I’d normally categorise as the negative end of our language spectrum, definitely not my usual way of speaking. I was glad nobody was nearby. But that’s also a very specific form of communication. And on today’s topic, you’ve already touched on it — we’ve covered communication in various ways before, you mentioned the anchor points, I remember that well. I dug through my memory, and what really stuck with me was that question, can you not communicate at all, or is it that you cannot not communicate. And the second essential hook for me was always, one of my favourite topics, that communication is the transport belt for our unconscious bias, for the distortions we pass on, more or less consciously or unconsciously, through our communication. And in that sense, it either triggers acting, accompanies acting, or brings about a change in acting, and in others’ acting too. Those were the two essential reminders for me. But I see the stage has filled up, so I hope someone can join me and dig up what knowledge and insight remains from our previous rooms on communication. Thanks for listening, for now.

Wonderful, thank you so much for that opening. Not nice, what happened to you this morning, but still a good opportunity for the room to actually pick this up. You’ve already made several connections to past rooms — we’d had this aspect with acting too, the distinction between planned and unplanned, or conscious and unconscious. And what happened with the pot this morning was definitely, at first, unplanned. And what you described afterward, the various words you used, which came out impulsively, or in the moment, in quotation marks. We can use this as an example, to look at that process, and think about how it differs from planned or conscious actions, and how communication connects to acting here. So one side was that impulsive, affect-driven reaction, maybe using certain words. And on the other hand, looking at what happened next — how was the acting steered in the next step? Did the communication have anything directly to do with the acting, or was it completely detached from it? There are several possibilities here worth exploring. Would you like to go first?

I see our other friend wants to join too. Go ahead.

I’ll gladly let her go first, but I’ll come back to your last point about acting under affect. Up to you, glad to hear you.

Wonderful, thank you so much. Good morning!

Your mic’s still off for us, we can’t hear you yet.

Let’s see if it works technically today or if we’re in for more challenges. If it doesn’t work, maybe try leaving and rejoining the room, that’s helped before.

Oh, maybe this helps. Can you hear me now?

Yes, we can hear you.

Can you hear us too? Yes, we can hear you, a bit quiet, but we can hear you.

She probably couldn’t hear us, that’s why she left briefly. Let’s wait a moment, I’m sure she’ll be back. In the meantime, everyone else is warmly invited to join too, and share experiences, impulses and so on — the more perspectives we open up, the richer this gets.

She’s back. Let’s try again. Can you hear us and speak with us?

I heard you brilliantly. Can you hear me?

Now we hear you brilliantly too.

Funny, I’ve already told you so much. I’ve been listening all week, but I was in a taxi, driving my son to an internship somewhere — about 30 minutes by car, an hour and a half by tram. So that’s the backdrop for today’s topic, acting and communication. Our friend gave the intro on communication. I was at an event this week — not my political leaning, but it was a kind of halfway review. I don’t want to talk parties, but there was a man who spoke up, and in a tone that basically left people not knowing what to do with themselves. He said, I’m from such and such, I’m self-employed, and what you people do here is just idiotic, politics and so on, in that direction. Up to that point everything had been very factual, very reasonable, everyone had said their piece. And I thought, hello, can’t this guy think, he’s not achieving anything with this. I think he ended up with 99 against 1 afterward. Someone else said, I’m from the same district too, but I hope I don’t leave the same impression as that resident from my district. And I ask myself, if people take the topic of communication that lightly and just blast off like that, they’re not achieving anything. Whether it gets them into acting, I don’t know, maybe, but they won’t find allies. So that gave me some food for thought. The second point on communication is how people communicate today. Youth slang, for instance — when I talk with my son, I sometimes struggle to really follow, because it’s so fragmented, so modern. He tells me, mum, I sometimes don’t understand you either, because I talk to him differently. How do we get on the same page together, and how do we get into acting together? We manage, that’s not the question, but it’s a different world, I’d say.

Wonderful, thank you so much. Especially the first point you raised also ties into today’s subtitle — not just looking at communication and our own actions, but also at the actions of others. How does communication influence the actions of others? I find your example great for that. And also things like communication differences — you just raised the generational difference as an example, there might be other differences worth exploring here too. Let me first give our other friend the chance, since he’d let you go first, to come in here, and then we’ll bring in our third friend too.

Thank you, Yasemin. I’ll deliberately build on what was just said. And I see two essential points, tasks for us, to get clear and agree on what we mean by communication. There are generally two well-known distinctions, verbal and non-verbal communication. As the term suggests, one has the voice as its transport medium, the other has some medium other than the voice. Which raises the question, what does communication actually consist of? And that connects to the example just given — we don’t just communicate through language, we also communicate, and we communicate our emotions. Those are two really essential points for me. The first is usually the focus for most people, communication means speaking. No, communication also means emotion. And there’s a third possible distinction, and I say this deliberately, because I make this distinction for a specific reason, though nobody needs to follow me here. And this ties back again — if I recap correctly, aggressiveness, especially in language. That’s, in my view, a kind of paraverbal communication — it’s linguistic, but it’s tied to emotion. And that tone of voice, and here another window opens, is very strongly tied to emotion and, to a large degree, unconscious, meaning not controllable by us in that moment. I recall my opening example with the burned hand — I wasn’t in control of myself in that moment either. So this distinction is really important, I think, once we reach the level mentioned last — the feedback, the result of the communication as seen by the other person. What I say, what I communicate, sorry, let me say, what I communicate doesn’t have to be what actually lands with the other person. That’s the first point. I’d like to close with that, but let me add one more thing at the very end — thanks again for your examples, on youth slang. There’s a Youth Word of the Year chosen every year, I read recently, which shows us that our language, not communication, language, is changing. But if I say we don’t just communicate through language but also through emotions, then the question definitely arises, do emotions change too, and for whom, me, others — a fascinating topic, I think. Thanks for listening.

Wonderful, thank you so much. And especially with that feedback dimension you raised, what actually lands with the other person — and is it what I intended to send, or maybe something I sent unintentionally in the heat of the moment — we also have that evaluative dimension. We’ve raised the concept of judgment in various rooms before too, and said that judgment plays a really essential role in this context. You know this from different situations — you get feedback on a talk you gave, or a presentation you prepared for some meeting. One person gives you this feedback, another gives you that feedback. Meaning, in both cases you sent out the same thing, but you get different responses back. For one, the speaking pace was too fast, for another it was exactly right. So judgment plays a really decisive role here too. Meaning, against the backdrop of someone’s own experience, their own assessment and so on, even though we’re talking about the same thing, or sent out the same thing, it doesn’t necessarily land the same way with every recipient — there are differences. Let me bring in our other friend now. Good morning! I’m not sure if you’d like to build on various points, or add further ones.

Good morning to the round. I would have started with something else, but dear friend, let me start with you, and with our other friend too, on terminology. Communication is understanding through the use of signs and language. So non-verbal or verbal, thank you for that. Now to you — that shows the whole complexity, and I hope I can draw on past rooms too, with your example. You just said the man, if understanding is the use of signs and language, then that man in your room did exactly that. He used signs and language. Understanding, and this is why I’m so grateful to you for your terminology — understanding has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with comprehension. You have no comprehension for the man. You just said he’s not achieving anything with the communication he did. Now you’re moving into judgment, and that’s what makes this so complex. He’s not achieving anything because he doesn’t share your values, your morals, your ethics. You don’t even know his goals. Maybe his goal isn’t, I doubt it, just to look stupid. Or maybe there’s a group in that room who share exactly his values, his ethics, his morals — then he’s actually achieving quite a lot, which we can observe in American politics and here too. And that’s what makes communication so difficult, when people don’t consider whether it’s wise, that’s a separate discussion, whether it’s wise how the man argues, how he goes about it, if what he’s achieved is that everyone in the room now knows exactly who I consider an idiot and who not. Well, that’s not exactly clever as a way to achieve something. And that’s what makes this whole communication thing so difficult. He definitely used language and signs by the definition. We don’t know his goals. And my point on acting and communication would first be, coming back to the earlier example, we talk to ourselves an enormous amount during the day, and we talk to others. So there’s communication outward and inward. And when feelings come into it, and they always do, then it often happens that I talk to myself, saying, how could I be so silly again, why did this happen to me again, and so on. Maybe a curse slips out too, whatever. And you see how complex this topic is, if we consider today whether communication, as I just said, always has to involve comprehension, does communication have to make sense, do I want to reach the recipient’s reason? Can you follow me logically, can you say, what he’s saying makes sense to me, I follow him, I agree with him. If I’m in opposition, in politics, I’m pursuing a completely different goal — I appeal to your feelings, because I know I reach your feelings much faster than your reason. And since the brain, we’ve learned this too in the Deep Talk Club, doesn’t like spending energy — if I want something from you, a change in behaviour, we resist at first, oh that’s expensive, I don’t feel like restructuring, behaviour change is too uncomfortable too. And then, of course, I manage to pull you to my side if I simply make claims, by saying, hey folks, everything our friends have told you is total nonsense, then I pull some statistic out of a hat, doesn’t matter if it’s true or not, because the other person’s brain takes my statement as legitimation for not acting. And we’ve said we cannot not communicate, and naturally we can’t not act either — even if I don’t act, if I use an argument completely detached from reason to get you to not act, or to pull you to my side, I’ll probably achieve that much more easily, with much simpler means. And that’s why, thank you for this topic, opposition is actually a really simple thing for me — I just have to be against something, and I find the group that’s also against it, not hard to find in this room, and then I appeal to your feelings and use some possibly absurd examples that don’t get questioned either, because if I say what you already think anyway, if I move exactly within the bubble of thoughts you already have, we always agree more easily than we disagree, we don’t need to question, we don’t need to make an effort, and finally we have someone on our side saying what everyone else says, how comfortable. And thank you, Yasemin, for this topic, and sorry if I went on a bit long there.

Wonderful, thank you so much. And before I hand back to our other friend to pick the question back up — what influence does communication have on our actions and the actions of others — we’ve now had this aspect of judgment, communication as verbal and non-verbal, and considering that we can’t not communicate, what happens in relation to actions, and if we take today’s morning examples — there’s a judgment happening quite quickly, or an impulse reaction, but at least some reaction triggered in some way, either preceded by judgment or without judgment, like with the hand on the pot — I maybe didn’t judge that quickly, because in that moment it just hurt and I reacted instantly, an impulsive reaction triggered without any preceding judgment. Maybe worth looking at that more closely too. Go ahead, and then our other friend.

Please remind me if I forget, since there was a lot there, what happens then. But the essential trigger for me was pointing out, in my understanding, regarding the beginning, when it was said that this connection, understanding, was bridged to comprehension, the goal of communication being comprehension. I’d disagree there, from my view, and say, no, the goal of communication isn’t comprehension, the goal of communication is that my expectation, which preceded the speaking in a thinking process, actually gets picked up by the other person accordingly. Meaning, my personal opinion on answering the “what for” of communication, and you know I always question not just the what and the why, but especially the what for and the how. The what for, for me, exaggerating a bit, we can’t hurt each other, whether you understand it or not doesn’t matter to me, but the actual goal, when I discuss with you, is that my expectation, my standpoint, lands with you and gets positioned accordingly. That’s one thing. The difference between wanting to be understood as the benefit, versus my expectation being fulfilled as the benefit of communication.

And the second point you raised, I still have it, what happens then, especially after an affect-driven action? I find that a great question, let me get ahead of it and say, then an unconscious next round of communication follows immediately, and in the case of an example like the burned hand, I won’t repeat what I already described. Thanks for listening.

Wonderful, thank you so much. Our other friend had also raised her hand, but let me ask first, would you like to respond to that? Because I’m not entirely sure whether that was actually a contradiction, or a misunderstanding, since I hadn’t placed it as you saying comprehension has to happen, but rather that understanding doesn’t necessarily or inevitably lead to comprehension.

Would you like to respond to that?

Thank you, yes, that’s exactly how it was meant. I was only referring to the terminology — communication is exchange, verbal or non-verbal, and when I talk with someone, I reach understanding with them, but it’s not automatically given that they also have comprehension, or that comprehension arises. The only addition I’d make, and I fully agree with what was said, is that we also use communication manipulatively, so my goal is different from your goal, and I’d open that bracket, whether it matters to you if I understand you or not, I don’t think it does. If you’re a politician wanting to get re-elected, or on the board wanting to get re-elected, you’ll use communication manipulatively, not maliciously, I’m not implying anything bad, but you’ll deploy your communication in a targeted way to reach whatever goal you have, which I might not necessarily know, because maybe I don’t have comprehension for it — and what just became clear to me again from what was just said, a point that always affects us humans, you showed me this in a table yourself, is reason and emotion. And if I manage to trigger emotions, or if I’ve already decided before someone even speaks, I don’t like him, look how he walks, and then he says something ethical or moral where I say, now I’m slamming my fist on the table, that can’t be true, what he’s saying — then the rest of the content is completely irrelevant, because my brain has only one hope left, that he stops talking so I can listen to someone I find more likeable. And now I’ll hand it back to the likeable round and look forward to listening to you all further.

Thank you so much. Let me hand it to our other friend directly here, and then give our third friend the chance too.

Thank you both. I didn’t see it, and didn’t want it understood, as a counter-position, but as a mutually complementary one — understanding on one hand, and this acknowledgment of what I expect on the other. The essential difference, for me, is that with a “what for” of being understood by the other, I open a door to constructive communication and discourse. Whereas if, in my position, say as a politician, ideologically styled to the very last detail, if I purely want to see myself confirmed through my communication, I’m practically preventing constructive communication from happening. Admittedly a very subtle, fine distinction, but I think it plays an essential role in how we interact. Let me say that. And now I’m back at the topic — if we know what communication is, what it consists of, and what it’s capable of in determining our own acting, or influencing the acting of others.

Wonderful, thank you so much. And that lets us hand back beautifully to our other friend, because that aspect you raised, the “what for” of being understood, opening the door to constructive discussion, exchange, dialogue — on the other hand we also have situations, and that’s how what she described earlier sounded to me, since she asked, why does he do that, it doesn’t achieve anything, he should surely be able to assess that. Maybe there’s a second aspect here too — not always opening the door to exchange, but in that case, letting off steam, giving emotion free rein, not even with the goal of being understood, but simply venting frustration. I’m not sure what you wanted to pick up on, but maybe you can add to that too.

I don’t think there’s much left, since you’ve all said what I wanted to say. From that angle, I have to say, sure, he wanted to let off steam, that’s clear, but you also have to think, I’m going to an event and maybe want to achieve something. We see the same thing in politics right now — if everyone just lets off steam, we’d all have vented and stayed in exactly the same place, not moved forward an inch. And I see that a lot right now, because when you exchange thoughts, you might actually move a step forward. So I agree with you all, emotions are part of communication either way. The only problem is, if someone gets too emotional in a certain direction, what our other friend said earlier, of course I judge him, what kind of guy is that, nobody’s even listening to him anymore. He probably said some great things, but if he’d said them differently, people would have listened. Instead everyone was thinking, will he ever stop talking. Someone said, can someone take the mic away from him. That’s all counterproductive. So from that angle, and this as a final point on acting and communication, if communication is meant to lead to acting, I need to find a platform where I can communicate and actually bring about that action. And that’s, I think, our biggest political problem right now — we discuss, everyone wants to be at the front, and we get nowhere. I have to say goodbye, unfortunately, I’ll listen a little longer but I’m being picked up. Thanks, great room.

Thank you so much. And I find that point really fascinating too, let’s look at it together. Of course we can ask whether every room is suited to letting off steam, or similar. But we can also ask whether it’s sometimes not just helpful, but actually necessary, to release pressure at certain points. Take a pressure cooker as an image — you know it, pressure has to be released sometimes, so the food turns out well and everything’s fine. So releasing pressure in between, to get back into thinking and acting, can well be something really helpful, and in certain contexts even necessary. Maybe worth discussing from that angle too.

Let me give our friend the chance again, then our other friend, and then bring in a third.

Thank you so much for your contribution too. I generally observe, not tied to specific topics, and you’re right, if someone just lets off steam, nothing happens. And I observe exactly the same thing in a different way, especially in politics. You only get somewhere if we reflect on everything we’ve learned here with you, question it, and check whether it holds true. We just have, briefly, because this really deserves two rooms of its own, the shifting of parties and the threat to democracy. Now we need answers and solutions. Of course we get answers too, all sounding very clever and plausible, if you don’t feel like engaging with the topic more closely and don’t question it. The moment you start questioning individual terms, or looking at the legal situation and various solutions, all these contributions supposedly aimed at solving something amount to nothing more than us having talked for five minutes. Nothing changes in certain areas, because it’s simply not legally feasible. And yet I give my listeners a good feeling. I show emotion, I get involved, I show comprehension, I hug our friend. But nothing will happen. And yet people feel like something’s happening. And on the topic of letting off steam, yes, I observe this not just in politics, that people can express themselves so cleverly, that people are such communication experts, that people can talk for 45 minutes, stir up emotions, so you think, that’s one of us. But the actual solution, through questioning, through engaging, what you always call on us to do, letting A stand next to B — I miss that discussion everywhere, fundamentally. There’s opinion A and opinion B. So we look at that. Then you ask, can’t we see it differently too? Can we shift perspective together? Couldn’t it also be, and it could just be, that this is a judgment of yours? And what’s missing, as I’m rambling on here, is often, I think, a clever moderator, someone who steers conversations, because it’s always two value groups, or two interest groups, colliding. Feelings are in play, interests are in play. And that’s why I value your rooms so much, and I’m not just flattering you here, this is really one of the few rooms where you let people stand side by side, where nothing gets attacked, where people on stage don’t get insulted, defamed, where unfair communication, and unfair communication is communication too, doesn’t get used, where people who aren’t trained or practised in this, who don’t know how to handle it, don’t feel uncomfortable. So again, and I’m repeating myself for the second time today, thank you for your rooms, for offering such a forum, and for such an important topic, because communication and acting are among the essential processes, if we understand them, to be able to recognise things. I can’t tell you the solution, of course. It would be great if I had a solution through communication for every issue that comes up. Sometimes the solution is really hard and has to be worked out. But recognising the processes — and I get the impression that’s your intention and your drive, helping us to at least recognise a process behind everything possible in the first place. And if we recognise and question processes, that’s already a small step, and the first open door toward new acting, new reflection and new acting. You too helped me a lot, both of you, this whole room, to reassess and see many things anew, even if I still don’t have answers to a lot of things.

Thank you so much. And honestly, if we were in a room together, I’d give you a hug right now. I’m genuinely looking forward to Sunday’s room too — we have the digital campfire planned. I’ll build all sorts of bridges there. I already replied to a LinkedIn comment from our friend yesterday and hinted in this direction. Things like learning processes where the other person isn’t even willing at first. Or, what’s actually needed? Or aspects like what you just raised, democracy, shifting parties and so on. I think we’ll have a lot of connecting points on Sunday, especially when we talk about X Spaces together again, not just the experiences we’ve had here, but picking up on this or that too, against the backdrop that I’d like to share my perspectives with you and discuss exactly these aspects. And you’ve already beautifully built the bridge in that direction. I’m really excited about that. So you’re all very warmly invited to join and see.

One point I’d like to pick up before I hand back to our other friend — the statement that if I let off steam, nothing happens. I’d really like to put the question out there, is that actually true? Because we’d established, just like I can’t not communicate, I can’t not act either. And if I can’t not act, some reaction always gets triggered. And one reaction to that speaker was clearly that our friend took it with her, that there were reactions in the room, that there was astonishment, that we’re talking about this behaviour in this room today. So ultimately, it still results in some action, in some form, whatever comes out of it. But it’s not the case that no reactions and no acting can result from it. Worth looking at that too.

Thank you. I hope I can pull this together. What our friend said right at the end was actually the essential trigger for me, to recap what we’ve established so far in this highly complex sequence, as a kind of meta-process. And I’ll take, as an indicator, as a trigger point, this “releasing pressure” that’s been discussed so much. Releasing pressure, for me, confirms, checked box, that communication doesn’t just happen on the verbal level, through language and gesture and expression, as you put it, but also through conscious and unconscious emotions, or emotional steering, when it’s conscious. That’s a really important point too, I think, emotional steering, when it’s conscious. That’s one thing. Back to releasing pressure — releasing pressure comes down to having an expectation, namely that the pressure within me, the kettle, loses that pressure. That I can give something of myself, that I finally stop whistling, to stay with the pressure-cooker image. That’s my expectation. And with that expectation, with that conscious or unconscious decision, or this “what for,” what’s my expectation when I communicate now — am I essentially deciding consciously, or more or less unconsciously? Do I need someone for that? Or is it enough for me to talk to myself? That’s the question I always ask myself. Is it enough for me to be alone with myself, in the inner system, the internal communication versus the external communication, as we’ve called it before, or do I need someone for it? And this man, our friend’s example, probably decided, more or less unconsciously, the pressure is too high, it’s not enough for me to be my own conversation partner. That’s a wall for reflection. And that reminds me of a video with a well-known author, who addressed exactly this topic, sorry if I’m stretching this a bit too far, on the distinction between men and women. I’ll just put this out there, and I can’t judge it either, but apparently there’s a difference between us, the two sexes. Men, she says, communicate to solve a problem. And women, not exclusively, but essentially, to share themselves, to have a surface for reflection, that may not even serve to give advice or judge what’s being said, just to let off steam. And that, for me, right now, is such a lovely meta-process level that’s opened up. I hope I’ve managed to connect it reasonably well for you all. Thanks for listening.

Wonderful, thank you so much. Regardless of whether there are actually differences between men and women, in my concrete example it was a man who essentially shared himself in that situation. And I love drawing that distinction — there are different approaches, or the question of the “what for” too. On one hand maybe to solve a problem, on the other, to share yourself. And especially with this aspect of sharing yourself, we can trace that really strongly on social media channels too, if we think about it — if we just look at various comments on different topics. You could keep asking, why do they do that, it doesn’t achieve anything at all. There’s clearly a need there too, to share yourself, and not necessarily with the goal of entering communication with the other person, or exchange, or solving a problem, but simply to share yourself first. And I find that genuinely fascinating in this context. So let me, with an eye on the time, pick the question back up — what influences our communication, our actions, and the actions of others? Maybe we can now look at how to pull that together and build the bridges again.

Go ahead.

I’d like to respond to your last remark. You said, why do people share themselves on Instagram, it doesn’t achieve anything. That’s a judgment on your part too. If I have enough of a bad mood in the room, that’s my own judgment too, please question that as well, and that’s why discussing with you all is so much fun, if I have enough bad mood in the room and say, they’re all idiots, they don’t know anything, they’re making everything worse — and if I keep hearing enough of this negativity, politics is stupid, that party is stupid, they’re making everything worse, worse, worse, then I don’t even need to offer solutions anymore. Eventually 70 or 80 percent of people, in the US for instance, can’t even say anymore what’s actually bad and what’s good. So I wouldn’t say it doesn’t achieve anything — we’ve seen exactly how elections have been won, not through reason but through emotion, in America too, with Instagram posts, Facebook posts that achieved nothing in terms of comprehensible understanding the way we might explain through reason. That’s not why it worked, even if it’s a bad opinion, it’s still an opinion, and we’re all human, emotional beings, and it’s really hard not to be swayed by images, words, gestures, actions and statements. You have to be super reflective not to be, and I consider myself a very reflective person, but I’m not, 24 hours a day, I have my weak moments too, where you can pull me temporarily to one side or the other emotionally, quite quickly.

Wonderful, thank you so much. And let me underline, so I’m not misunderstood, that wasn’t my opinion, that it doesn’t achieve anything — it might have created that impression for some listeners, but I have a different view on it, and I’ll actually shed light on it from various perspectives on Sunday at the digital campfire, opening up my own perspective, creating transparency, and going into discussion with you about it. Personally I think it very much does achieve something, and not just achieve something, but that it’s genuinely important too, whether in social media contexts or others, we have many other contexts where this happens, and in my view it has a function, a really important function, and if it gets suppressed, that has consequences and effects too, which we shouldn’t underestimate. So I’m really looking forward to looking at this with you all on Sunday already.

Would you like to follow up on that?

Yes, you walked right into my trap, that was a perfect example to use — I know that’s not your opinion, I didn’t communicate that either, and that’s exactly how communication works. I steered you by saying, dear friend, I want the recording differently, claiming that’s your opinion, I only repeated the statement, and that’s how communication works — I consciously nudged you emotionally in one direction. I know what you think, I only repeated your statement, and we automatically go into that defensive mode, where we clarify, and that’s important too, that this isn’t our position. And if that’s used consciously in communication, I have unbelievable tools at hand beforehand to steer politics and discussion, because I know people, because I know you, listen to the recording again, I only said, dear friend, I want to remind you, and you said, that doesn’t achieve anything, but it could achieve something — I didn’t say, dear friend, I think that’s your opinion, that it doesn’t achieve anything. We’d have to look exactly at the terminology, as our other friend said, but that doesn’t happen in discussion, because we always manage to either consciously put words in people’s mouths once they’re in a defensive position, or people think, no, I can’t let that stand, he’s misunderstood me, so I go into defence. And that’s what makes communication so challenging. And that’s why, dear friend, I thank you every single day for how important it is to pay attention to terminology in every communication. But dear Yasemin, you reacted unconsciously, just as I react unconsciously too — that’s what makes us human, and that’s what makes us predictable.

Thank you so much, but I find it genuinely fascinating in this context, because I wouldn’t say I reacted unconsciously, and I also didn’t react out of defensiveness — for me it was important to bring in transparency here, so it really wasn’t misunderstood. And that’s why I find this fascinating again too, and I’m completely with you here, that what’s said and what’s heard don’t always overlap — quite the opposite, not only does that overlap not always happen, but we have so many rooms where we very deliberately pick up terminology, look at our shared understanding, and check whether we differ in the terms we use. And I think that’s a really important aspect, because we always assume that when we communicate well, in quotation marks, whatever good communication even means, that we’re able to convey what we actually wanted to say or think. And usually that’s not the case. Meaning, even when we feel we’ve reached understanding, we’ve only ever approximated it, we’ll never achieve a perfect one-to-one transfer, simply because it’s not possible through language, or gesture and expression, everything that falls under that, due to the inherent limits of context itself. And we have to accept that too, this fallibility in communication. We can be glad and grateful that people developed communication, through language for instance, to be able to understand each other better than was possible many years ago. But we also have to accept that something like language reaches its limits too. And even when we feel, I did express it, that doesn’t mean it landed one-to-one with the other person, only that I always create an approximation of it. And by the way, that brings us right back to AI too, let me build that bridge — it works no differently there. Learning models work with approximations too, to let something be recognised as right or wrong. Quite fascinating actually, there are a lot of parallels here.

Would you like to follow up on that?

Thank you for that. You can’t see me, but you could picture me with a wide grin on my face. This back-and-forth between you two has two points for me. First, communication is not just language, it’s emotion. Second, and you touched on this in your last remark too, building the bridge — the essential thing for me, fundamentally, isn’t the goal of achieving comprehension, but my own expectation. Expressing my expectation, definitely, through corresponding signals. And since we’re in a fairly exclusive room right now, let me take the liberty of explaining the original trigger for what I always call “the spirit that always negates.” Regarding not just the what and the why, but especially the what for, dear friends. This goes back to a quote I read decades ago, in Nietzsche, in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. And there’s a sentence that’s been burned into me for decades — I hope I’m quoting it correctly from memory: “Tell me what you’re enthusiastic about, and I’ll tell you who you are.” And this questioning of the “what for,” in communication, naturally has two spheres — my own, and the sphere of whoever I’m communicating with. And both, more or less consciously, question or should question, in this communication, what for, meaning what expectation is actually behind it. And then you arrive at the conclusion, regardless, I don’t want to judge it, but the result of answering the question “what for,” namely my own expectation, is the transport of my own values and convictions. Because that’s what we transport in communication. We don’t just transport facts, we also transport emotions, and with them we transport our own values and convictions. And that’s why this little question word, “what for,” is so important to me, across all the topics that occupy me. Thanks for listening to that admittedly slightly whimsical remark.

Wonderful, thank you so much. What a room, that’s my comment on it. And I’m genuinely curious about your closing comments or contributions. What would you like to hold onto?

I have a closing word. I’ve thanked you several times today for your rooms. And words, I can communicate that, but communication also involves explaining. And I was just thinking about why I love being in your rooms so much. And I love being in your rooms because I always leave with a good feeling, not always with results, not always with answers, but what I particularly value about you, and I learn a lot from this, is how you shape a moderation so that both sides, even if comprehension might not be there, still leave with a good feeling, oh, interesting, new perspective, something to think about. And you achieve that with me every single time. I always say, that’s a hundred percent. Thank you for that. Chapeau. Have a great day, everyone.

Wonderful, thank you so much. Would you like to go?

I’ll quote our friend and refer to the recording, since I have nothing further to add to what’s been said, just this addition. Have a good day, everyone.

Wonderful, thank you so much. I genuinely thought this room was fantastic, really, really fascinating to observe this whole progression too, on one hand the great examples you brought in to open up different perspectives, and then watching the room’s development itself too. And it certainly makes sense, just as with our other recordings, to keep coming back and revisiting one point or another. We can also be surprised to notice, again and again, that we didn’t hear certain things in the room, or heard them differently, than when we look back and listen again. And repetition is really valuable too — we’ve talked about this before, to reactivate the neural networks, meaning to consolidate memories and make sure real learning happens, it’s important that we don’t just go through it once, but have some repetition too. You don’t need to listen to the entire recording again for that though, just as a reminder — it’s enough to pick up sequences from it, listen in selectively, also for the sake of time efficiency, if you say you can’t listen to every recording right now or however it is, just to get that neural network going, we’d established before that it’s the small, selective aspects that do it. That could be a quote, or similar. So it’s worth picking up the podcast selectively too, just to listen in for a few minutes here or there, to get those synapses going again and reinforce the learning. With that, let me round things off for today. Tomorrow we continue with acting and routines — I’m already looking forward to that. How can routines support us in acting, that’s the question we want to look at more closely. We’ve touched on routines in other rooms before too, and now it’s specifically about bringing routines and acting into alignment, building the bridge, and deepening it further. With that, I wish you fun, and I’m looking forward to tomorrow.