Article 1 - "WHEN LANGUAGE BECOMES FOOL'S GOLD" by Jessica Kuzmier October 2007 edition of First Church of The Streets

     Communication between people is considered one of the greatest achievements of the human race. It is the one thing that seems to set us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom, this fact that we can construct complex sounds together and assign all the nuances that create associations in another's mind. Communication can relay emotions and information in relatively quick time. To many, it is a means for emotional comfort, such as support groups or therapy. There is even some proof, as related by a ten-year medical study conducted by researchers in a Eaker Epidemiology Enterprises, (WebMD, "When Marriage can Hurt a Heart"), that women who don't talk during marital conflict are likely to suffer heart disease. Certainly, language is a very potent tool in human culture.

     But like many things, this tool can be misused or even turned on itself, becoming as much a problem as anything else. People who use language as a means to create disharmony or even as a weapon are the most obvious examples in this situation. They may use names, statements, or other vitriol against a person while rationalizing that their victim, if he or she is hurt, is "too sensitive" because it was "only words". As far as they are concerned, the onus is on the receiver rather than the one that unleashed a verbal tirade. Language in this case becomes a symbol of twisted logic that makes sense within itself, because an answer can always be found to those who wield it like a weapon. One's self-destruction starts here many times, because an individual can always find a way to rationalize words that "don't leave an impact", when obviously that statement in of itself is nonsense. For if words never were intended to leave an impact, why has human culture gone through so many permutations to develop this so-called empty practice?

     In a similar vein, those who go on tangents without directly abusing a particular individual wind up in a position where they render their own communication useless. How often have you heard someone go on a terminal lecture (regardless of whether the topic is about the state of the union, how you never talk to the speaker about your feelings, or how Susie is such a jerk), and you wind up tuning out half of what the person is saying? Multiplicity of words has an effect of nullifying them to a listener. If there is no give and take in a conversation, a listener begins to realize that he or she has been excluded from the exchange and begins to focus on more important things, say, whether the Mets lost again or what to eat for dinner. This is obviously the diametric opposite of what the speaker had intended, seeing that he or she felt that what was being said was so important that the floor must be hogged at all cost. Enthralled in his or her own words, the speaker may not even realize that the captured audience has escaped from the dungeon. In this respect, a multiplicity of words is a counterintuitive endeavor.

     This is what the Preacher may have meant when he said: " A serpent may bite when it is not charmed; a babbler is no different...the lips of a fool shall swallow him up. The words of his mouth begin with foolishness, and the end of his talk is raving madness. A fool also multiplies words." (Eccl. 10: 11-14). In equating a babbler with a serpent, the Preacher clearly has strong feelings about the matter. What he seems to say in this matter is that a person who feels an incessant need to dominate a conversation with overweight verbiage is so unaware of what he is doing that he is unaware of what he is even saying, or the impact of his words. She is so unaware of her motives, that she doesn't even realize that her words are more about her trying to control things or force someone to acknowledge her, rather than whatever content that she speaks.

     This is the reason why a communicator in this position is never assuaged, because he is not aware of why he is being so verbose to begin with. Because the initial motivations are hidden from this "people eater", this person may delude himself into thinking himself "friendly" and "sociable". She may pride herself on "telling it like it is", and being "honest". But because of the self-delusion of their motives and the people around them, these people may be anything what they pride themselves on. The fact that they are blind to this as they communicate something completely different than their superficial understanding makes their communication all the more empty, if not less annoying.

     A person who rants and raves may call himself an extrovert, thinking himself the same as a person who loves to talk to anyone about everything. He may see garrulous people and think himself part of their culture. Two important differences mark the ranter from the extrovert, however: an extrovert is aware that he or she is talking to a real human being, and is aware of the point of what is being said. There are whole cultures who talk over one another, almost seeming to be in competition for who's the loudest to a quieter observer. But many have perfected their own way of communicating of talking and hearing at the same time. The difference between a ranter and a healthy member of these verbose cultures is that they remember to hear as they speak. They realize that their words do have an impact, and factor this into their speech even as they rapid fire their communication.

     Verbal communication is obviously a vital part of human society, so talking does matter. Negotiation, compassion, information, and much of our media would suffer without its existence. But it is easy to forget its impact, thinking its intangible nature should deflect off a person like a rubber ball bounced on the ground. This forgetting is where the problem starts in communication, as people sometimes forget that what they say is a reflection of them. Communication is better when one remembers that the audience as much a human with needs as he or she is. Then, diatribes which exclude the listener are less likely to happen.

     As the preacher said, "the words of wise man's are gracious" (Eccl. 10:12). Regardless of personality or culture, wisdom dictates discernment so one knows what she means and remembers that all people in the conversation are as vital as she is. Then, communication to heal the heart will be more liable to happen, as the listener knows that he is being considered. In all communication, whether it is a wife needing to be heard, people at a party, or an international delegation to avert a war, dialogue is most wise when all people regard the humanity and dignity of all persons involved. Then, the tool that has brought humanity to its level of development can work at its highest peak of production.