Category Archives: Communication

Are We Driving or Communicating?

So, at least in theory, I recently learned how to work with an oxen team. I’d been saying that I was going to learn to drive oxen. Among my many discoveries was that working with oxen is more about communicating with them than driving them.

“Whooooa, Boys!” Notice I am moving the goad in front of them.

I heard one of my instructors say more than once. “You’re confusing them. They don’t know what you want them to do!” Staying focused on communicating was a bigger challenge than it might seem. And at times, it was funny. Mostly though, it was frustrating!

In brief, trained oxen receive information from the teamster in three ways. The first is (or at least should be) spatial—the body position of the teamster. Second is the “goad” or stick and where and how they are touched. The third is verbal. There is some indication that they hear vowels best. So “whoooooa” works better than “whoa.” The best example of confusing them was when I’d say, “Whoa!” but keep walking. (In my mind, it made sense because I wanted to get in front of them. In their bovine minds, I was sending mixed signals.)

Instructor Rob is a school teacher. We had lots of fun making comparisons. One was the comment, “What you’re doing shouts louder than what you’re saying.” You don’t have to work with kids for long before you realize “Do as I say and not as I do” doesn’t work well.

While a 2,000+ pound ox doesn’t engage in what we call “higher levels of reasoning,” the basics are the same. That said, two of the teams I worked with were extremely well-trained. One team of Devons would stand and let me walk some distance away. I could then raise my goad and call, “Right here, boys,” and they would walk to me and stop with their heads on either side of me.

We students had to learn a bit about herd instinct and survival from predators. Rob occasionally reminded us that building trust with the beasts was important. “You may have to convince them you’re not trying to kill them.” Herd instinct requires they accept you as the top ox.

Here’s an interesting comparison. My Ram pickup truck weighs about the same as a large pair of oxen. During Road Trip 2024, I drove that truck over 3,600 miles, mostly by pushing pedals, turning the wheel, and flipping switches. (I’m purposely omitting occasional arguments with the voice feature of the GPS.) The truck doesn’t have a mind of its own or any instincts. It just does what you tell it to do.

Oxen require a bit more understanding and communication than my truck or your car. You can’t just drive them. One of the things I found challenging is the amount of attention required with oxen, particularly when pulling something. There is no cruise control!

Of course, all analogies break down if you press them, but in addition to the joy of working with these large animals, it was great to be reminded of some of the basic truths about effective communication. I’m still processing, but a few important lessons can be learned.

Don’t send mixed messages! If you say “whoa,” stop moving. Remember: “What you are doing is shouting so loud I can’t hear what you’re saying.” Let’s get everything aligned.

Use multiple communication strategies! Oxen expect to be told and shown by position and the goad. With humans, say it, write it, demonstrate it. I’m not suggesting you email someone and ask if they got your text. Texting serves a different purpose than emailing or calling. Chose wisely.

Speak the language of the listener! With oxen, “Come here!” is not the same as “Right here!” Be conscious of buzzwords and implied meanings. Do you want me to do something, or do you need me to do something? Also, oxen can’t talk back. Humans can. Take advantage of that by asking humans what they heard or read.

Use the listener’s name freely! To make a team of oxen turn sharp left, one has to slow down and perhaps stop completelyit’s like driving a bulldozer. You’ll need to tell one ox (by name), “Haw!” and the other (by name), “Whoa!” (The goad and your body position are important. Use multiple communication strategies!)

When we want a team of oxen to do something, good communication is effective. “Driving” is not. Picture grabbing a 2,000-pound animal by the horns and making him stop. It’s not likely to happen. Picture yourself being dragged in the direction the team chooses. It might make for a funny video to post on social media, but it’s not likely to achieve the desired result.

When done correctly, communication is powerful. It beats driving any day once you get the hang of it.

Can You Follow This Logic?

I’ve recently been getting phone calls from the same unrecognized number 3-4 times daily–some well into the evening. I finally answered one out of sheer frustration. The caller pretended to be my friend, called me by name, and claimed he represented the C.D.C. Since the C.D.C. is not currently on my favorite organization’s list, that was not a move in his favor. If a phone call can be both annoying and funny, this one might qualify. I wish I had recorded it.

ME: I answered the phone only so you’d stop calling.

CDC: (After a hearty laugh) I’d like to ask you some questions.

ME: I’d like you to prove you’re actually from the CDC.

CDC: I can send you a text message.

ME: That won’t prove a thing. I want something in print.

CDC: Okay, if you’ll just give me your email address…

ME: Print means paper and ink. And I’m not giving you my email address.

CDC: I can do that. What’s your name and address?

ME: You must already have that; you’ve been calling me by name.

CDC: No, we only get phone numbers. I’ll need your address to mail you something.

ME: I’ve got a better idea. Put me on your do-not-call list.

CDC: I can do that.

ME: If you don’t, I’ll be reporting this number to the FTC. If you really are associated with the CDC, you’re still not exempt from federal law.

CDC: Okay, have a nice day.

I’ve wasted some time trying to figure this one out. First, if this was some sort of CDC survey, why was my specific input so crucial that he kept calling repeatedly? (Actually, it was obviously robo-dialed.) Second, assuming it was legitimate, was he that ignorant, or did he think I was? He’s going to prove he’s with the CDC by sending a text message from the number he’s calling from? He’s going to send printed information by email? How does that work?

Data has value. We need to be cautious about giving it away too quickly and easily. It makes sense to be a little cautious about who gets ours.

And just occasionally, it’s possible to enjoy the ride.

Can It, Please!

I recently whined on Facebook about the number of email assaults I receive regarding real estate, noting that most violate Federal Law and ethical considerations. I also suggested that I might write a blog post highlighting some of the provisions of the “CAN-SPAM Act.” Since the Facebook post received a few (very few) “likes,” I am proceeding.

Real Estate Peeps may feel free to ignore it but do so at your own peril. When you send emails regarding listings and open houses to groups of people, it is considered commercial email, and the CAN-SPAM Act regulates it.

The CAN-SPAM Act (Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography And Marketing Act) is a U.S. federal law enacted in 2003 to regulate commercial email messages and prevent spam. Here’s a summary of its essential requirements:

  1. Unsubscribe Option: Commercial emails must include a clear and conspicuous way for recipients to opt out of future emails. The unsubscribe mechanism must be functional for at least 30 days after sending the email. This is one of the most common violations I see.
  2.  Identification: The email must clearly identify itself as a commercial message and include accurate sender information. Sender information includes the sender’s physical postal address. Note that you can run, but you cannot hide.
  3.  Deceptive Subject Lines: Subject lines must accurately reflect the content of the email. Misleading or deceptive subject lines are prohibited. This should be obvious.
  4.  Sending Practices: It’s prohibited to use false or misleading header information, use deceptive routing or relay techniques, or employ any other deceptive means to hide the origin of the email. Again, you can run, but you cannot hide.
  5.  Honor Opt-Out Requests: Once a recipient opts out, the sender has ten business days to honor the request. The sender cannot transfer the recipient’s email to another entity for sending additional emails.
  6.  Monitoring of Third Parties: Companies using third-party marketers to send emails on their behalf are still responsible for ensuring that those emails comply with CAN-SPAM. You can delegate the job but not the responsibility.
  7.  Penalties: Violations of the CAN-SPAM Act can result in substantial penalties, including fines per email sent in violation of the law. The most significant penalties are alienating potential clients and losing the respect of others.

I think the most significant penalties are alienating potential clients and losing the respect of others.

Regarding penalties, here’s a funny story for you. I (and, I’m sure many others) received an unsolicited email from a self-proclaimed marketing expert who promised to increase my business geometrically. It did not contain much humility and assured me the expert knew many marketing secrets and tricks. It also violated a number of the provisions of the CAN-SPAM Act.

I figured out how to reply to it (not usually a good idea, but I thought it would be entertaining), expressing interest in the magic offered, particularly given that the marketing the expert was doing on their own behalf violated Federal Law on many points.

I have not heard from the SPE (Self Proclaimed Expert) since.

It’s important to note that this summary provides a general overview of the CAN-SPAM Act, and there may be additional details and nuances in the full text of the law. It’s essential for businesses engaging in email marketing to understand and comply with the Act’s requirements to avoid legal consequences.

Note this does not address the advertising rules enacted by the Maine Real Estate Commission, other federal and state marketing regulations, or company policy.

When Artificial Intelligence Isn’t…

Sometimes, you have to see the humor in it.

I’ve not been particularly fearful of the increasing use of AI. Some of my writer colleagues are freaking out. While I’m certainly not an expert, I think an essential limitation of AI is the linear aspect–at least at this point.

There’s a fundamental difference between “intelligence” and “thinking.” Intelligence means knowing you don’t start sentences with a contraction. But a thinking writer will do so to make a point. (See what I just did there?)

So here’s a story for you. I received a $50 debit card thanks to a settled class action suit. It could only be used for online purchases, functioning like a prepaid credit card. The instructions warned that the transaction would be denied if an attempted purchase was more than the balance on the card.

I purchased using the card for $48.52, leaving a $1.48 balance on it. My financial thinking hated acknowledging that I would be “losing” that $1.48 unless I made an online purchase for less than that.

This is not too complicated so far, right?

A month later, I received an email advising me that my $12.76 purchase was denied because it exceeded the balance on the card. That would make sense, except that I hadn’t used the card. So the most logical conclusion to me (and, I’m sure, you) was the card has been “compromised.” We are both intelligent and thinking.

So I emailed my concern to the card provider. “Noemi” almost immediately advised that I’d been assigned a case number and would be hearing soon. (Apparently, Noemi must follow a proscribed, linear system to pretend it can think. )

When the reply came, AI generated it (emphasis on Artificial), reminding me that I was not allowed to make purchases that exceeded the balance, etc. It insulted my intelligence, but I reminded myself our relationship wouldn’t have much emotion. Noemi isn’t concerned about my feelings.

After some thinking (there’s that word again), I realized my only risk here was $1.48, which I’d already determined I would lose. But for the entertainment value, I continued to converse with Noemi via email.

Noemi continued sending me useless information reflecting its lack of understanding of my emails and inability to think.

ME: “I’m reporting this because there’s a problem with your system and this compromised card. The good news is the system denied the charge.”

NOEMI: “Please contact the vendor to dispute the charge.”

I briefly considered additional experimentation. Could I find a keyword for Noemi to recognize and generate a different response? I suspect that will become a required skill in the future, but I didn’t see much to gain this time.

One thing that does scare me a bit is that many humans are adopting this linear thinking pattern. I remember a conversation during COVID with a doctor’s office that was refusing to see me because “You have symptoms of COVID.”

I replied, “But I tested negative. The symptoms are attributed to my COPD.” (I should add this was a routine, non-essential visit.)

The human replied, “I’m sorry, but our policy is that we don’t see patients with COVID symptoms.” I thought her voice had a robotic tone.

I said, “Can you take a message for the doctor?” (Artificial intelligence likes closed-end questions that require a “yes” or “no” answer.) “Please advise the doctor that she will never see me again since I will always have these symptoms.”

Several days later, I received a call advising they had changed their policy and I could please come in next Tuesday.

So the good news is the bad news. AI doesn’t think like humans do–that’s the good news. But humans sometimes “think” the way AI does–that’s the bad news. I’m more concerned with human thinking than artificial intelligence. How about you?

Memorial Day, Where Are You?

Something is missing. Since I often say, “Nothing is ever lost as long as it’s remembered,” I should perhaps explain. What seems to be missing or lost this year are the formal opportunities to remember and honor those who (if we’re going to be precise) died in the service to our country, at least according to some sources.

Like so many things, Memorial Day has “evolved.” Thanks to technology, it’s not too difficult to trace the official history, but the subtle history can be a bit more elusive. As originally conceived (Decoration Day) in 1868, it was meant to be for honoring and mourning the U.S. military personnel who died while serving in the military.

By the time of my earliest recollections, it seemed to have “morphed” into a day for honoring and mourning military personnel who died, not necessarily while serving in the military. Perhaps because of the day’s roots as “Decoration Day,” the focus seemed to be maintaining the graves of those who served–those who died in service and those who died since serving. We spent, literally, hours improving grave sites, planting flowers, and placing flags. Parades often ended in cemeteries. in a sense, we “decorated” graves with our presence.

Thanks in part to social media, some are trying to restore the original meaning. Perhaps with this blog post, I have joined that informal group. But when I read the posts and comments, I disagree with many.

One that makes sense but is also troubling points out that today is for those who have died and instructs us “not to thank a living veteran, today is about honoring those who died in service to our country.” My grandfather and dad would be left out based on that technicality. Sorry, but that doesn’t feel right. Both were proud veterans, and both paid a price by serving.

Many died while serving, more are dying since serving, and many are currently serving. Is there an occasion when we should NOT be grateful to those who have served and those who are serving?

Another “suggestion” is that we “remember that Memorial Day isn’t about picnics and having fun.” My earliest recollections are of a day that was both somber and fun. Those emotions are not opposites.

And, perhaps more importantly, if we stick to the original definition of who we honor, I think they would be pleased to know we are having fun. They died so we could. Having fun honors them.

I find it difficult to criticize anyone who celebrates the meaning of this day in some way. Distance means I can no longer visit my father’s and grandfather’s resting place and make sure they “look right” for this day. I may not find a parade to watch this year. But I will hang out the flag tomorrow and spend some time in contemplation and remembrance.

And I will have some fun, if only because I can. You should too!

The “decorated” graves of Walter Boomsma, Sr. (served in WWII) and his father Jan Boomsma (served in WWI). Jan served in the Australian Expeditionary Force, thus two flags.