Why we should talk to each other about how we talk to each
other
It’s an archetypal misunderstanding: A couple are sitting in a car and the
traffic lights turn green without the driver noticing. The passenger says:
‘It’s green.’ The driver replies testily: ‘Am I driving or you?’
This example comes from Friedemann Schulz von Thun. His
‘communication square’ does not count as a theory in the narrower sense,
but it breaks down the many pitfalls of communication in a clearer way
than other approaches. According to Thun, every message has four layers:
- Content (what I am informing myself about).
- Appeal (what I want to achieve).
- Relationship (my relationship to the receiver).
- Self-disclosure (what I show of myself).
Our example contains the content layer (‘The traffic light is green’), the
appeal layer (‘Come on, drive!’), an allusion to the relationship (the
passenger wants to help the driver) and the self-disclosure layer (the
passenger is probably in a hurry). These are the four facets of the sender’s
message.
The person receiving the message – in this case, the driver – does so
with his own four ‘ears’. On the content layer (‘The traffic light is green’)
the two people are still in agreement, but the driver interprets the appeal
(‘Come on, drive!’) differently (i.e. ‘Why are you so slow?’) and finds this
insulting. He reacts accordingly: ‘Am I driving or you?’
We encounter this kind of flawed communication all the time: ‘Hey,
what’s this in the soup?’ – ‘If you don’t like it, eat bread.’ ‘When will you
be ready?’ – ‘Stop hassling me!’
The way we understand messages is determined by the sender’s and
receiver’s previous history, the context, the tone and many other non-
verbal signals. How can we solve misunderstandings? By talking to each
other about how to talk to each other; in other words, by practising ‘meta-
communication’. Because good communication occurs when intention and
understanding are in harmony.