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

[Connie Reece]

@Rebecca - You might want to take a look at an article I wrote called "Is Your PR Team Social Media Savvy?". The same principles apply to marketing/advertising as well. (http://everydotconnects.com/2008/08/14/is-your-pr-firm-social-media-savvy/)

I wrote the article because social media has become a buzzword that many agencies and consulting companies tack onto their service offerings simply because they know clients are looking for it. I often spot this type of company by their job openings. When they ask for a candidate who has 10 years of experience with blogs, podcasting and creating viral videos, I know they don't "get it."

For one thing, those technologies have not even been around that long. And for another, you cannot create a viral video. You create a video you hope will catch the public's attention so much that they will spread it far and wide until it becomes viral.

The main thing is to do some research and see how they are actually using social media. Check their blog, and don't just review the quality of the content; look at the comments as well. Do most of the posts have comments? Has the author responded to the comments in a manner that fosters dialogue about the topic? Tone is important.

Ask what social networks they regularly use. Check them out there as well. How frequently do they update? How do they interact with others? Find out if they have written any case studies.

I hope that helps answer your question.

[Connie Reece]

@Erica - There will always be a disproportionate number of people who don't engage. Studies give various numbers but it's approximately 1% of people who create content for the Web; 9% comment or interact in some way with the content; and 90% simply read/view and that's it. But I do think you're right that we could boost up that 9% participation rate at least a smidgen by creating a more encouraging environment. Sometimes all it takes is *asking* for a comment and drawing the shyer ones out.

@Beth - you're right that being tone deaf is something we can all evidence from time to time and it is something we can easily forgive when a simple apology is offered or a correction is made.

@Jay - And to quote the Good Book, "Pride goeth before a fall." Yep, arrogance abounds in some circles. And the principles of openness, authenticity and transparency serve as spotlights to shine the light on it.

[Connie Reece]

Hmmm. There are several more comments I made that don't show up here -- I responded to all of the commenters subsequent to Deb, but my comments are not showing up. (Typepad, I have a bone to pick with you! That was a lot of writing you sucked into some black hole.)

[Connie Reece]

Don't mind me. I'm brain dead. Didn't see the tiny little arrow that signifies comments are continued on the next page. D'oh.

[Peter]

Dear Connie,

My own experience is that of some one that can sing in tone only when mimicking others. I am tone deaf in my own voice. Do I sing like others or sing like myself? Is it wrong to sing in your own voice or must we lose our voice to avoid offense.

Peter

[Mite]

Connie,

Your post got my attention by its introduction that gets it right, I think, on conversationally tone-deaf people - " others seem genetically incapable of picking up verbal or written cues that keep the conversation flowing". I am a little sad that you managed to miss the point entirely in the remaining of the post. What you described in 1 and 2 are the behavior of would be internet marketers who tries to get the maximum effect with a minimum work and in 3, the behavior of those who are not even trying to listen. Not a word on the ones who try to sing hard as they can but don't hear the tones.

[Valeria Maltoni]

Mite:

Interesting view on the remainder of the post having "not a word on the ones who try to sing hard as they can but don't hear the tones."

A couple of months ago I had a post on power ad collaboration linking to a Davos video with Ben Zander, the Boston Philharmonics Director. In it he explains how nobody is tone deaf [http://tinyurl.com/3w9m5y ]. I also believe that when the intention is pure, it comes across, regardless of form.

[Peter]

Valeria,

"When intention is pure, it come across regardless of form"

I'd add, that when intention is pure it is not the speaker who is "tone deaf" but the listener. The listener can only hear that which they want to hear.

Much of what is described as tone deafness by Connie, can also be explained by the lack of compassion in the listener.

Perhaps we don't notice how hard it is to write online. Watching Conversation Agent for a while, I read voices expressing fresh ideas without the aid of the constant negotiation of meaning that is central to conversation. Each post a self executing file of knowledge, experience, content, meaning and intent all wrapped up in words. Which we intuitively know is no substitute for hearing a voice, watching a person and sensing them.

Writing online is hard. We are struggling to communicate just with words and the audience seems only happy with perfect pitch (to mix a bunch of metaphors, ideas)

Which brings me to "not a word on the ones who try to sing hard as they can but don't hear the tones." - Perhaps they hear themselves and want their voice to be heard too (however offensive to the ear of those with perfect pitch) - If it wasn't for them I suspect we only hear ourselves in each post over and over and over.

Thank Valeria for letting us hear, Connie and others voices these past weeks.

[Connie Reece]

@Peter, I like this question: "Is it wrong to sing in your own voice or must we lose our voice to avoid offense."

We need to sing in our own voices, absolutely. And we must come to the recognition that other people may "march to the beat of a different drummer," to continue the musical analogy. Our writing will not please everyone, especially when we are expressing opinions about deeply held views. But if we want to connect with readers, we must keep them in mind while writing.

Thanks for commenting.

[Connie Reece]

@Mite, your concern for those "who try to sing hard as they can but don't hear the tones" is why people like Valeria are so dear to me. They are conduits of conversations, advocates of those who write to express themselves without regard to the writers' ability to "sing on key." There are too many bloggers with big egos who ignore their readers or belittle them -- and that holds true for readers who comment as well.

One of the things I stress when presenting at conferences or teaching workshops is how to make comments on other blogs and how to respond to them on your own site. Listening plays an important role for both sides, especially because of the difficulty in conveying, and interpreting, tone.

Indeed, intention does manifest itself. Thanks so much for commenting.

And Valeria, thanks for letting me have a bit of a rant on your site. :-) <--added to convey tone

[Ari Herzog]

The appropriateness of reading your words today is I had a conversation last night about music and drawing, with the presumption that nomadic hunter-gatherer tribes must have been listening to things, anything, before they drew the objects.

Music is a powerful emotion.

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Peter - the audience for online content in blogs sometimes seems happy with the mere confirmation of what it already thinks it knows. I keep coming back to this idea because I so often see insightful content go unnoticed. Or maybe it gets noticed by fewer readers for lack of popularity. A strong reason that moves me to ask a mix of voices - known and less known - here is that. I have enjoyed rediscovering thoughts and conversations thanks to others in the past two weeks, when my contribution has been just of supporting, listening and making the space available.

@Connie - you are very kind. Thank you. It has been exciting to welcome so many new voices in the posts and the comments for the past two weeks. All thanks to you, your readers and those of other bloggers and guest writers.

@Ari - I wrote a post on the allure and power of music to convey emotion recently about MySpace. I used Cartier as an example of a brand that capitalized on that smartly. Glad the content connected with you.

[Peter]

Better posted than never (sometimes we hold ourselves back in conversation and it is only afterwards we think we should have spoken up - typed this up at the time but didn't post it - I just copied it - was emptying out junk files when I came across it again and it reminded me of a more recent conversation.

****

I also wonder if you can sometime misdiagnose "tone deafness" for a much more chronic (and widespread) condition which looks more like autism.

I see myself as suffering from a form of autism online. Without all that is not words I become the bench mark of what is appropriate not the "other". I read myself into the lines and comment as if to myself. You hear my voice as I hear it. But, you listen to your voice and read differently.

Trying to work out the differences between what was said/written and what was heard/read is the essence of conversation. Looking for clues (verbal and non verbal) of where we don't meet and exploring these with compassion (not respect or civility - I can respect your view that doesn't mean I have tried to understand what you are saying)

To me, great conversations are joyous labour and exhaust like a day in the garden. There is nothing easy about understanding a lifetime of experience distilled into a phrase - Unwrapping meaning like the layers of pass the parcel - anticipation growing as you approach shared understanding of words- the prize not that you agree but that you have, through the conversation, heard another voice and not your own.

I find it hard to play pass the parcel online. My technologically inspired autism renders me socially awkward at best and at worst unfit to play. I end up playing with my self.

I wonder if I'm just stubborn in not changing the way I converse with the world online- am I incapable or unwilling to change my voice to match the limitations of the technology. To mimic others because my own voice offends.

But perhaps the "problem" is not that people can't hold a tune but that others only want to listen to the tunes they like. Who is the tone deaf tyrant?