A few years ago I found the urge to express myself in a new way so I took up acting at our local theatre school, The Prairie Theatre Exchange. It eventually lead to a spot in "Adult company" where I actually acted in a full fledged onstage production. Both the most frightening and the most exhilarating experience of my life (well I suppose I should include jumping out of an airplane as well).
Anyways, I remember some of the funnest times in theatre school was the games our instructor had us play to help us get comfortable and creative at the same time. One such game was, of course, improv. There was only one rule to improv- YOU WERE NOT ALLOWED TO DENY ANOTHER PERSON'S REALITY. In fact, you had to build on it to keep the scene moving. Ummm...I thought to myself, what a great rule for Life. Seek to understand another person's reality or perspective and then find a way to build on it. Not necessarily agree or accept it blindly if you choose not to but learn to stay "in scene"and "on stage" with your fellow actor. Denial of another person's reality creates contradiction and conflict which can lead your fellow actor to "exit, stage left". Now you, he/she and your "audience" are robbed of what potentially could be a transformational moment in this play called "Life".
Which brings me to our topic of content vs context. Simply put, content is YOUR experience and knowledge while context is about the meaning of your experience and knowledge to SOMEONE ELSE. I call it the "WHAT" and "SO WHAT" of information. The great teachers in life know this "secret" distinction. They teach their information with context. Information (or content) that has more meaning to their audience because,
A. the audience could see the value of the info from their own perspective lenses.
B. the audience related to and retained more easily the content presented.
In today's age there is no shortage of information or content but a large shortage of context in relation to that information. The how and why a person is presenting information has become more important than the information itself. Consider the reality that the same "content" can have a totally different meaning (or function) if it is put in a different context. Let me illustrate, using a common examination finding seen in many medical or chiropractic offices.
Finding- L4 Patellar tendon reflex decreased (aka MSR) (+1)
Interpretation #1-Dr. Smith, medical neurologist- Lower motor neuron finding, correlate with other motor and sensory findings to rule out disc pathology or peripheral nerve lesion- refer for MRI imaging or electrodiagnostic testing and then an orthopaedic surgical consult.
Interpretation #2- Dr. Smith, chiropractor- Could be a red flag but likely a product of an L4-5 subluxation compressing the L4 nerve root. Adjust it and watch the magic happen.
Interpretation #3- Dr. Smith, chiropractic/functional neurologist- Rule out red flags and/or compressive lesion at the cord level (again with other motor and sensory findings) but also likely a product of an imbalance between the anterior and posterior muscle compartments of the lower limb mediated by the ponto-medullary reticular formation in the brainstem. How do I get that area to reset the gain on those Renshaw cells?
All three interpretations are essentially right given their own unique models of reality and of the situation. The problem lies in the contradiction and conflict that these interpretations would cause if the three practitioners were in the same room together. Content vs Context issues are bad enough in the world of diagnosis as it is, particularly with the languaging and terminology that is involved. My greatest teachers (and they are the rarest of rare) are the ones that can take the same content (such as an examination finding) and give me many of the contextual meanings behind that content so that I may see how another set of eyes would interpret that information. This would allow me to be in the same room with the other practitioners and, provided the others stayed open minded and flexible in their communication, to be in a position to respect their reality and build on it with a dose of mine. Now, no one exits stage left, and something can be accomplished. The play goes on.
I have not utilized (at least not consciously) nor been trained in Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) but some of their "presuppositions" do make an awful lot of sense to me. Namely,
-"The meaning of the communication is the response it elicits". Seems straightforward but how often when we engage with another, do we allow our own agendas to cloud our ability to ascertain the response we are getting to what we say. Made even more difficult by those who are really good at feigning the fact that they are actually listening to you.
-"There are no failures in communication, only outcomes". Again, seemingly straightforward but difficult in practice since a part of being human is the emotional charge we attach to many of the exchanges we have with others. Just ask my wife.
-"In interactions among people, the person with the most flexibility and variation of behaviour can control the outcome of the interaction". And I have written about this before, this presupposition strikes right to the heart of the importance of training your EQ, emotional quotient, as a mandatory skill for success in life. It is the hallmark of every successful person I know and even those that don't have it, and appear successful on the outside, limit their potential influence in the world to an even larger degree by not developing it.
So since every interaction in life is an improv, what would my life look like if I played with the cardinal rule in mind? Even better if I reminded myself that it could be a fun game to play.
