Are You Conversationally Tone-Deaf?

By Connie Reece

At church recently my friend's two-year-old joined in the congregational singing with gusto. The toddler mangled the words, of course, and could not carry a tune in the proverbial bucket; but she clapped her chubby little hands in delight while "making a joyful noise to the Lord."

And noisy, she was. The child sang loudly enough that those around her got tickled, and her father tried to shush her. Though she warbled off-key, I have a feeling heaven enjoyed her musical tribute, even while it made some parishioners a bit nervous.

As a musician with almost-perfect pitch, I've worked with a number of supposedly tone-deaf people. Some are not really tone-deaf at all; they just need practice matching pitches. Others truly are incapable of carrying a tune no matter how much you work with them; they do not hear different frequencies in a way that allows them to reproduce musical tones.

I've noticed the same tendency in conversation: some people are naturally gifted at it; others gradually acquire the skills that allow them to engage in enjoyable and effective back-and-forth exchanges; while others seem genetically incapable of picking up verbal or written cues that keep the conversation flowing.

What constitutes conversational tone deafness?

1. Insisting on one-way communication in a conversational medium.

This is amplified by the number of tools that allow auto-posting of content across channels. Often I see the same message posted on Facebook, Twitter and Plurk, for example, and perhaps identi.ca and ping.fm as well. Outside of noticing duplicate messages, it's a dead giveaway when a status update on another network refers to someone's Twitter user name.

Sometimes it's harder to decipher that a microblogging post is really a broadcast, not an invitation to conversation. People respond to the posting where they found it, yet the author rarely checks for comments on the numerous channels where he or she has scattered the message, leaving the impression that the author is aloof or arrogant or too busy or too uncaring to respond. (After a few times, that person earns an "unfollow" from me.)

Many of the worst offenders are social media consultants, those who are urging clients to "join the conversation" and advising them on best practices for engaging with customers and prospects online. This is not a best practice.

Yes, I know that conversations have become terribly fragmented, and there is no way to gather comments in one spot, which makes keeping up with the conversation much more time-consuming. But that genie is out of the bottle. Try to answer people wherever they want to continue the conversation with you--and think twice before broadcasting messages to social networks where you do not intend to be sociable.

2. Hijacking someone else's conversation.

Some people are conversationally tone-deaf because they do not know how to truly listen. They listen (or read) only as a means of finding a place to insert themselves into the conversation. These are the people who comment on a blog post primarily so they can link to their own site. They are the ones who visit the Facebook page you just spent hours creating and, rather than contributing anything of substance, post a photo or video or link promoting their own page or cause.

Have you ever known someone who had an almost uncanny ability to insert themselves into every verbal transaction? I once worked with a woman like that. She even managed to make the introduction of a guest speaker all about herself, going into detail--irrelevant detail--about some vague connection she had with the speaker.

Conversations take natural turns and wander away from the topic at hand; that's normal ebb and flow. Taking over someone else's comment thread, however, or purposely diverting it in another direction, amounts to hijacking.

3. A lack of respect for other viewpoints.

Blog comments may turn into a heated discussion with rapid-fire volleys exchanged in near-real time. That's not necessarily a bad thing; it means you have hit upon a topic that people are passionate about. What is disturbing though, is a tone-deaf attitude that demonstrates an unwillingness to consider other viewpoints or to dismiss summarily people who hold a different opinion. One of the reasons I am a fan of Conversation Agent is that Valeria treats everyone with respect, offering a thoughtful response even to dissenters.

Some people thrive on snarkiness, and it certainly can drive traffic to a controversial discussion. But it's a risky tactic and can backfire, gaining a short-term boost in readership while alienating long-time subscribers. Clever, humorous writing with an edge is difficult to pull off. If it's not your forte, don't try it.

Also, there is a fine line between being snarky and being downright mean. There is no place for bullying in civil discourse, whether online or in person. If you are the host of an online conversation, you not only have the right but the obligation to provide an open yet safe forum where differing opinions can be shared without a tone-deaf tyrant creating an untenable atmosphere.

What other behaviors have you noticed that amount to being conversationally tone-deaf?
_______________

Connie Reece is founder and principal of Every Dot Connects, a social media consortium. She is also a co-founding member and serves on the advisory board of Social Media Club. The opinions expressed in this guest post are entirely her own and not those of Valeria Maltoni or Conversation Agent.

Comments

[Tim (@Twalk) Walker]

Good post, Connie.

One more example of tone-deafness: when people don't pick up on verbal cues (or even outright statements) about the emotional reactions they're fostering with what they say in social-media settings.

I've had a few exchanges on Twitter or in comment threads where I felt like the other person overstepped (got too personal, became patronizing, descended to ad hominem arguments, whatever), but then wouldn't change course, lighten up, apologize, clarify, or do anything else to right the ship of that conversation.

We *all* have the potential to misjudge people, especially in rapid-fire, text-only exchanges. But the responsible thing -- or the non-tone-deaf thing -- is to own up to what we say, and to be attuned to those signals when the other person is trying to let us know that the conversation has capsized. It *should* be easy to say, "Whoa, there - maybe I misunderstood you - could you clarify?" -- yet some people seem incapable of it.

[Gail Ow]

Excellent post, Connie!

I always enjoy your incites about social media, and while not tone deaf myself, I am learning as much as I can from wherever you and others of your expertise, care to teach me to make perfect pitch!

[Allen Mireles]

Thank you for this post Connie. You make your points beautifully and with humor. I especially enjoyed your opening and am smiling as I type at the image of the little one singing.

I will forward this post and look forward to the next ones.

Warm regards,

Allen (A Twittermate)

[Daniel J. Pritchett]

Nice writeup, Connie. I particularly agree with #1. Quite often I'll comment on a blog or reply to a tweet and get silence in response. It invariably turns me off and makes me reconsider my patronage.

I realize that people are busy and that not every comment can get a response, but when the only comment on your post is asking a pointed question you really ought to consider answering it.

[Connie Bensen]

Connie,
I am one of those tone deaf people that loves to sing in church! It gives me joy while my hubby cringes. I do try to keep the volume down though. :)

Listening is an art that needs to be practiced. Only then should one jump into the conversation. Social media isn't any different. In fact it's even more important because the responses are embedded in the fabric of the web.

[Armando G]

I think another hallmark of the conversationally tone deaf is the need for an advocate. I think that some people, especially type A personalities and social divas, have the same desire to be heard, just in different proportions, and they need an advocate (be it an old friend, understanding spouse, mentor, etc.) to remind them to reign themselves in.

While advocates usually work behind the scenes, you can tell they are at it when the "offender" comes back to the conversation, perhaps a bit cowed, but with a new understanding and willingness to share in the conversation instead of dictating it. Although this doesn't strictly answer the question of what marks a CTD offender, I make this statement in hopes of improving the quality of the conversation for those who may need a bit of help, because ultimately everybody's input is valuable.

[Alexandre]

Came here via @TWalk's recommendation.

Very insightful points. Your intro makes it clear that this isn't about indicting certain users but about listening for harmony and dissonance. Many pronouncements tend to be so dogmatic that those subtleties are lost.
In fact, one might say that your three points are about nuance and context. AFAICT, versions of all three strategies can be used to great effect and that effect can be beneficial. But many circumstances of conversational disruption (communication breakdowns) do involve inappropriate use of any or all of these three strategies.

Even just discussing these strategies is a step in the direction of deeper engagement in thoughtful exchange. That's one of a number of places where your talent at organizing communities shines through.

Neat!

[Mike Chapman]

We've been trained, in many respects, to think that being louder and more relentless is how we get a message across. How could we not subconsciously be affected by a world of messaging that pushes information on us. Wanting to be heard has fueled the new communications tools so why not recognize that when using them? There are numerous benefits for doing so including having civil conversations that can lead to genuine relationships. Great insights as always, Connie. You get it.

[Kellye Crane]

Connie, as usual this is a great post. In particular, I appreciate that you note in point #1 that "many of the worst offenders are social media consultants." For those new to social media (as I was not so long ago), that fact is noticeable and jarring.

Though there are a great many who engage in the conversation (including present company, of course), I think social media will benefit the most when all the consultants are vocalizing the same melody they tell others to sing.

[Justin]

I agree. I think some people simply see social media as another free advertising venue. All they do is promote their products or services. No actual 2-way conversation only them blasting out information in multiple places.

[Marc Meyer]

Wow Connie, I'm guilty of a few of these but in an unknowing way. For starters,

1) I'm guilty of misplacing where the conversations start and end, so in a way, I'm still waiting on that great big comment agregator, But I do the best I can.

2) I also unknowingly hikacked the conversation of a CEO of one of the top social media platforms in the country when I had an audience with him. I did not do enough listening but...

3) He (the CEO) also thought I was argumentative. And per your point #3 the conversation was very one way and I have a feeling he did not respect my opinion or POV.

4) The lead analyst of a highly respected company took umbrage with a blog post I did. I made a correction and updated but stood by my opinion and yet his response bordered on snarkiness. Oh and he's considered a SM consultant.

So the point to all of this is this: I don't care if you're a N00b or not. You have to see the value in what a conversation is. It's a dialogue.

[Richard Becker]

Connie,

This really is a great addition to the Conversation Agent and I especially like how you pointed out that some people think they engage in two-way communication when they really are not (a favorite among several, it seems).

It's no bother to me, however, when some people or companies use the tool as one way communication. Many journalists, for example, don't always respond to comments. Their stories usually just provide a context for others to discuss the content. A few businesses have started to employ the tool as a more effective means to post news releases, which isn't a bad idea. And some individual bloggers that I know make no claims to be writing for anyone but themselves.

At least they are being authentic. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Best,
Rich

[Rick Simmons]

Connie
What a great use of adding music to the conversation about deafness as it pertains to conversation. I am amazed at the number of folks who are so afraid of the conversation online - as if they have any control over it.
Kicking and screaming is how i call it and that goes along with the music since I sing and it is interesting to note that really most folks with a bit of listening and training could sing.

[DebInDenver]

Hey Connie- this is great and I am guilty of being tone deaf- frequently! (Is that talking too much about me?)

I think this is a good opportunity to start a social media etiquette site- a la Miss Manners..."Gentle reader...""

[Rebecca]

Great post. I'm particularly interested in the sentence that reads "many of the worst offenders are social media consultants, those who are urging clients to "join the conversation" and advising them on best practices for engaging with customers and prospects online. This is not a best practice."

Can you elaborate on that? I'm curious because I'm researching a company that is a social media consultant. Thanks!

[Connie Reece]

wow! Thanks for great comments. I'll address them in more detail later. Right now I'm at an IABC luncheon listening to the great Shel Holtz.

[Erica]

Great post, Connie.

I think another avenue in addition to tone-deaf would be the mute variety. Those that listen, but rarely interact. You just can't get them to open up... and the few words that come out are often mumbled. I feel some are silenced by the "experts" and the cliques that form with the more socially/communicatively gifted.

Wouldn't it be great to teach the deaf and mute to be able to engage in a more friendly way?

[Beth Harte]

If anything, being involved in social media has taught me that conversation is indeed an art form. And like any craft it takes practice...lots of practice!

Being human, I am sure we are all tone-deaf from time-to-time, but recognizing the tone-deafness & correcting it straight away is what's important (and forgivable).

Insightful post Connie, thanks!

[Jay]

The reason for all these expertly explained transgressions -- arrogance. At a time when it's so easy to get fresh perspective, how can one person or group of people insist that there's is the resounding POV? Of course, they have to have their say, and it may very well be the best answer, but at least allow it to withstand scrutiny. If it holds up, that's a failsafe, and if it doesn't, you've kept the egg off your face. To quote Marcellus Wallace: "Pride never helps."

[Connie Reece]

@Tim, your observation about the emotional impact of our online exchanges is spot on -- especially during this historic political season where emotions are running high. Without visual cues it can be easy to misread the intent of a communication, but if both parties are willing it can be easily cleared up. If one party is not willing--if they can't catch the verbal cues or choose to ignore them--then there is a certain tone-deafness that not only derails the conversation but perhaps the relationship as well.

@Gail, thank you, friend. It's amazing to see you learning social media so quickly.

@Allen, I'm glad you enjoyed the photo. When I went looking for an image to illustrate this post, I was hooked the minute I saw this one. Such an earnest, uninhibited look on his face--I'd enjoy whatever he's singing whether he could carry a tune or not because he is so wrapped up in the music.

[Connie Reece]

@Daniel - So true. I'm bad myself about getting behind in responding to comments; I try to respond to them all. But it's especially important to provide an answer when someone is asking a question. It's not only discouraging to the original commenter who asked a question, it discourages others from commenting when they see that there is no response from the author.

@ConnieB - Just keep making that "joyful noise!" You're a great role model for others by the way you respond on your blog and social networks. And you're right: these responses live forever on Google. That gives them an impact that outlasts the original conversation.

[Connie Reece]

@Armando - Good point: we all need a friend or "advocate," as you called it, to nudge us when we don't pick up on verbal cues in the conversation. Sometimes they even call us out (kindly, we hope) in public when we have overstepped the conversational boundaries.

@Alexandre - Thanks for following Tim over here. I especially appreciated these words: "Your intro makes it clear that this isn't about indicting certain users but about listening for harmony and dissonance." Exactly!

@Mike - Your comment about getting louder and louder, as if that will help get our message across, reminds me of the ignorant way we sometimes talk to those who have trouble understanding the English language--we get louder, as if that will somehow cause them to understand us. Just doesn't work.

[Connie Reece]

@Kellye - I think part of the problem is that it's easy for early adopters / social media consultants to get caught up in Shiny Object Syndrome. There are so many new social networks, for example, that it's impossible to keep up with them--even for someone like me, who does this full-time. So we sign up for them all, and when we discover the ones that will allow us to spread the same message in a number of places, we take the easy way out and fall back to broadcasting. That's why I haven't even tried out ping.fm yet; I don't want to fall into the habit of using it.

@Justin - thanks for chiming in with an "attagirl."

[Connie Reece]

@Marc - Thanks for sharing your experience in some miscommunications or stalled/aborted/hijacked conversations. And yes, we are all wanting the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow--I mean a comment aggregator that makes tracking a conversation easier. :-)

@Rich -- Thanks for bringing that up. There are times when responses are unnecessary, such as news outlets. The intent there is to provide content and a forum for others to discuss it. And a few bloggers like Seth Godin, for example, do not even enable comments. That's fine; they're up front about it. My beef is with those who are touting social media as a means of having a conversation but then don't practice what they preach.

[Connie Reece]

@Rick - In the same way that a trained musician can teach most people to sing, those trained in communication skills can teach most people to improve their online conversations. It happens in two ways: 1) by serving as role models of intelligent, friendly conversation on blogs, microblogs and forums; and 2) teaching through sharing content on the subject in person and at conferences.

@Deb - the etiquette of social media ... we're having some good discussions on this topic among the leadership of Social Media Club. I don't look for one of us to step up and become the "Miss Manners" of social media, but we are indeed discussing how to offer guidelines for the wise business use of social media.