Hey Greenblasters!

Happy muthafuckin Thursday.

I’m actually writing this on Tuesday, while my daughter is sleeping (she’s been vomiting all morning, poor little kid).

But YOU’RE reading this on a Thursday.

Or maybe a Friday. If so, what the fuck took you so long?!

Wow, 2 f-words in the first 17 seconds. We’re off to a great start.

Okay, here’s the Greenblast:

Is communication more art or science?

I remember asking this question as an English teacher (about learning English), and my students and I spent an entire lesson debating this. It was so much fun.

And after being sent some interesting research on charisma by a contemporary of mine in the UK Kaffy Rice-Oxley:

(side note: isn’t that the most British name you’ve ever heard? And I can make that joke cause my mum is English)

I started thinking about this question again, but for communication:

Should you, as someone interested in learning to communicate more effectively, treat communication as an art or a science?

Let’s look at the pro’s and cons of both, then I’ll give my answer.

The science approach

In this approach, you:

• read as much scientific literature / pop psychology as you can

• follow people like Adam Grant, Vanessa Van Edwards, & Charles Duhigg

• implement what you’ve learned in “experiments” (talking to people)

• observe the results, and iterate on your experiments ad nauseum

Pro’s:

• Knowing the psychology behind an awkward silence, or the science of stage fright, can make you feel more confident

• Having verbal/physical “moves” can help you feel less nervous

• Reading this stuff keeps communication top of mind

• Experimenting and observing makes you curious

Con’s:

• Too much knowledge can make you overthink

• Doing “moves” is inorganic, and can read like that to people

• The science of communication is always being commodified for business and public consumption; you can’t be sure what you’re reading is accurate or even true

Let’s compare this to:

The art approach

In this approach, you:

• read a lot of fiction

• watch a lot of movies and TV

• observe people, noticing the way they make you feel

• communicate with as much as honesty and presence as possible

Pro’s:

• You create your own authentic “voice” as a speaker

• Other people become more entertaining

• You train yourself to trust your instincts

Con’s:

• You may be making the same “mistakes” over and over

• Fixing these is tough without a scientific approach

• You miss out on truly fun pop psychology

So…

What’s my answer?

I think you should approach communication like this:

Art first, science second.

The scientific work being done by psychologists and neuroscientists is fascinating, and learning about it has definitely made me a better speaker and coach, not to mention friend, family member, husband & father.

But communication, humans making noises to each other, is about connection and storytelling, both of which have experiential components that are more important than the science which describes them.

We all want the TOP 10 STRATEGIES, or THE SCIENCE BEHIND BLAH BLAH…

But if you can learn to let go of answers, stay in the moment, and truly listen to others, I guarantee you will become a better speaker.

That’s it for today!

P.S. Please reply to this email with RESOURCES, and I’ll send you my list of FICTION and NON-FICTION to read to be a better communicator

Thanks guys. Greenblast, out 🚀