What do you think?
Rate this book
Arta de a citi oamenii
OBȚINE CEEA CE-ȚI DOREȘTI PRIN INTERACȚIUNI REUȘITE.
Cu toții avem de-a face cu oameni dificili. Fie că trebuie să-i cerem vecinului nostru o favoare, fie că trebuie să gestionăm comportamentul copiilor sau să ne facem curaj pentru a-i cere șefului o mărire de salariu, ne lovim constant de situații în care trebuie să evităm discuții în contradictoriu și să obținem ceea ce ne dorim.
În Arta de a citi oamenii, Emily și Laurence Alison propun patru stiluri pe care le urmează orice interacțiune: Control (Leu), Capitulare (Șoarece), Conflict (Tyrannosaurus rex) și Cooperare (Maimuță). Înțelegându-le și folosindu-le pentru a-ți atinge obiectivele în comunicare, vei descoperi un mare secret – cum să creezi conexiuni imediate.
Cu toții avem de-a face cu oameni dificili. Fie că trebuie să-i cerem vecinului nostru o favoare, fie că trebuie să gestionăm comportamentul copiilor sau să ne facem curaj pentru a-i cere șefului o mărire de salariu, ne lovim constant de situații în care trebuie să evităm discuții în contradictoriu și să obținem ceea ce ne dorim.
În Arta de a citi oamenii, Emily și Laurence Alison propun patru stiluri pe care le urmează orice interacțiune: Control (Leu), Capitulare (Șoarece), Conflict (Tyrannosaurus rex) și Cooperare (Maimuță). Înțelegându-le și folosindu-le pentru a-ți atinge obiectivele în comunicare, vei descoperi un mare secret – cum să creezi conexiuni imediate.
352 pages, Paperback
Published January 1, 2022
427 people are currently reading
2762 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 60 reviews
October 19, 2021
The aim of this book, from my understanding, is to motivate people to rid themselves of bad communication habits and develop the humility in which to accept that we all have a lot to learn when it comes to improving our interpersonal skills.
I can tell you that the aim has been achieved.
This book has inspired me a great deal and I have strong reasons to believe that it will also inspire you. Emily and Laurence seem to be heavily involved in the translation of academic literature and studies into real world applicable lessons. They succeed with excellence at this translation. From their own anecdotal experiences and terrorist interviews, all the way to undisputed data and solid practical communication methods, this book has everything you need to begin becoming a better communicator (alongside a by product of becoming a better person).
A few key takeaways without spoiling the main messages:
- Rapport first begins with self awareness.
- There is more power in listening than in speaking.
- Value the autonomy of others and relinquish your desire to control.
- If these techniques work for interrogating terrorists without violence, they will ultimately lead you to better relationships with your loved ones, colleagues, kids, friends and acquaintances.
- The key part is to PRACTICE.
- Failing is a GREAT way to learn.
- If you don't try, you stagnate.
There are two totemic animal circles we all slide into, here is a small taste of them:
Be warm, think of something that makes you happy, be a cooperative Monkey (if the situation requires it) and reflect. Or, if you need to make yourself clear, be a good T-Rex and let honesty prevail in a forthright manner. Though, if you need to take the backseat, be a good patient Mouse and seek guidance. However, the situation may need a leader. The good Lion can set the agenda and without judgement, support others while taking responsibility.
There is also a BAD side to everyone of these animals! Finding out which I was and who those I communicate with are, leaves me in a position of choice: do I fight on the bad circle and breed more negativity into my relationships unconciously or do I elevate to the good circle and let kindness inspire kindness?
This book is fantastic. I publicly declare that I will attempt to develop myself from this book. It will remain on my shelf as somewhere I refer to often.
I can tell you that the aim has been achieved.
This book has inspired me a great deal and I have strong reasons to believe that it will also inspire you. Emily and Laurence seem to be heavily involved in the translation of academic literature and studies into real world applicable lessons. They succeed with excellence at this translation. From their own anecdotal experiences and terrorist interviews, all the way to undisputed data and solid practical communication methods, this book has everything you need to begin becoming a better communicator (alongside a by product of becoming a better person).
A few key takeaways without spoiling the main messages:
- Rapport first begins with self awareness.
- There is more power in listening than in speaking.
- Value the autonomy of others and relinquish your desire to control.
- If these techniques work for interrogating terrorists without violence, they will ultimately lead you to better relationships with your loved ones, colleagues, kids, friends and acquaintances.
- The key part is to PRACTICE.
- Failing is a GREAT way to learn.
- If you don't try, you stagnate.
There are two totemic animal circles we all slide into, here is a small taste of them:
Be warm, think of something that makes you happy, be a cooperative Monkey (if the situation requires it) and reflect. Or, if you need to make yourself clear, be a good T-Rex and let honesty prevail in a forthright manner. Though, if you need to take the backseat, be a good patient Mouse and seek guidance. However, the situation may need a leader. The good Lion can set the agenda and without judgement, support others while taking responsibility.
There is also a BAD side to everyone of these animals! Finding out which I was and who those I communicate with are, leaves me in a position of choice: do I fight on the bad circle and breed more negativity into my relationships unconciously or do I elevate to the good circle and let kindness inspire kindness?
This book is fantastic. I publicly declare that I will attempt to develop myself from this book. It will remain on my shelf as somewhere I refer to often.
September 18, 2021
Probably one of the best non-fictional books I've ever read. My wife says it looks more like a textbook and 'why would I want to read that in my spare time?' Well, the answer is it was interesting, insightful and very informative. Would I recommend it to a friend... mmm maybe. Would I recommend it to an enemy, most definitely.
February 8, 2021
I had looked forward so much to reading this book - but I found there was less to it than I expected. The circle of four "animal" types - two pairs of opposites - is interesting in that it highlights the "vertical" issue of status and the "horizontal" aspect of affiliation in all relationships. I have to say the use seemed a bit simplistic to me - but the fact that even young children can understand the four types is very encouraging.
The accounts of the authors' dealings with terrorists and other dangerous people are fascinating - I would have liked to learn more about this challenging but essential work, and to see more about how the Alisons got into the mindset of people like that.
Some of the points that the Alisons make are very salient - such as "once fear is introduced into a relationship, you cannot ever fully remove it". However, others were baffling - who really needs to be told "Do not ever be a bully"? And would "bullies" even be reading a book about rapport in the first place?
The authors are astute in noting that loneliness can affect anyone, even people with families and busy lives, and they are correct in saying that "Intimacy can be a difficult thing to establish or maintain ... because it requires devoting time, effort and energy to understanding others". But the issue of introversion is, I feel, waved away in rather a facile fashion, with a false dichotomy set up between having relationships of any sort and total sensory deprivation. In a lot of cases, being alone is definitely better than being in the wrong relationship.
More worrying to me is an account by Emily, to do with a man who had been given a non-custodial sentence for assaulting his partner. There was a problem to do with the man's housing. Emily tried to arrange "adequate local housing" for him, only to be told by one of the other people at the meetings that she was "clearly putting the father's needs above the children". Emily is critical of this other person - but I have to say I agreed with the person. Emily's response to this incident chilled me. I imagined how I might feel if I were the man's partner, knowing he was being housed nearby instead of 2 hours away. Yes, the Alisons may be experts at dealing with terrorists and other violent people - but they seem to have less understanding of the victims. From the point of view of someone like that man's wife, the Alisons and the perpetrator are on the same side. That idea concerned me because there are still far too many people (especially women) trapped in abusive and dangerous relationships, even at risk of being killed by their partners. That is a far more serious problem than misjudging people who have been violent.
I would say this book is a useful and entertaining guide for what I would call "normal" family or workplace relationships. But if you are in a relationship where you are being abused or frightened, you might need to consult writers who have more "rapport" with you.
The accounts of the authors' dealings with terrorists and other dangerous people are fascinating - I would have liked to learn more about this challenging but essential work, and to see more about how the Alisons got into the mindset of people like that.
Some of the points that the Alisons make are very salient - such as "once fear is introduced into a relationship, you cannot ever fully remove it". However, others were baffling - who really needs to be told "Do not ever be a bully"? And would "bullies" even be reading a book about rapport in the first place?
The authors are astute in noting that loneliness can affect anyone, even people with families and busy lives, and they are correct in saying that "Intimacy can be a difficult thing to establish or maintain ... because it requires devoting time, effort and energy to understanding others". But the issue of introversion is, I feel, waved away in rather a facile fashion, with a false dichotomy set up between having relationships of any sort and total sensory deprivation. In a lot of cases, being alone is definitely better than being in the wrong relationship.
More worrying to me is an account by Emily, to do with a man who had been given a non-custodial sentence for assaulting his partner. There was a problem to do with the man's housing. Emily tried to arrange "adequate local housing" for him, only to be told by one of the other people at the meetings that she was "clearly putting the father's needs above the children". Emily is critical of this other person - but I have to say I agreed with the person. Emily's response to this incident chilled me. I imagined how I might feel if I were the man's partner, knowing he was being housed nearby instead of 2 hours away. Yes, the Alisons may be experts at dealing with terrorists and other violent people - but they seem to have less understanding of the victims. From the point of view of someone like that man's wife, the Alisons and the perpetrator are on the same side. That idea concerned me because there are still far too many people (especially women) trapped in abusive and dangerous relationships, even at risk of being killed by their partners. That is a far more serious problem than misjudging people who have been violent.
I would say this book is a useful and entertaining guide for what I would call "normal" family or workplace relationships. But if you are in a relationship where you are being abused or frightened, you might need to consult writers who have more "rapport" with you.
February 24, 2021
Another book with some good advice and some genuinely interesting examples. I'm not sure it's quite as comprehensive and doable by anyone, as the authors claim.
Broadly it concurs with other books on better communication, while going into more useful detail. Notably though the importance to honesty at all times contradicts the book about handling dementia sufferers which I recently read. So not necessarily as easy to put into practice as suggested.
Broadly it concurs with other books on better communication, while going into more useful detail. Notably though the importance to honesty at all times contradicts the book about handling dementia sufferers which I recently read. So not necessarily as easy to put into practice as suggested.
September 16, 2022
Since falling into more neuroscience-based analyses of human behaviours and reaction, pure psychology books such as this feel like they're missing huge causal links that metacognitive awareness requires. Instead of being able to say 'I can feel that my limbic system is being aroused by a threat response, which has triggered a disequilibrium between dopamine and norepinephrine. I know this will affect my ability to cognitively process the situation calmly unless I reappraise the situation and visualise a positive future reward', you're told 'be a mature adult and get control of your emotions and think positively.' It just lacks utility and makes you feel as though you've failed before you start.
This was evident in various aspects of the book. Such as 'be direct but not too direct' without discussing any objective measure for what 'too direct' or 'not direct enough' is. While we could easily associate it to avoiding threat responses from a neurocognitive perspective. A begrudging acceptance of a resolution that triggers a lasting, ruminating threat response isn't making your relationship any better either.
Various other aspects of the book were equally unuseful: be honest, show empathy, rapport matters, words matter... none of which you can disagree with, but they're not exactly beneficial to increasing either metacognitive awareness or interpersonal skills.
There were also some selective and biased examples used in the book, with little neutralising counter-evidence. For example, it mentions the importance of autonomy in eliciting change, and then uses the example of Colonel Russel Williams' interview with Sgt. Jim Smyth, arguing that exhaustion-inducing pressure tactics are ineffective next to autonomy, as if giving someone choice is a sweeping panacea that cracks even the most hardened and henious criminal into confession. However, as pointed out, Sgt Smyth continued at Williams for more than 4 hours, on minimal evidence, applying numerous mental exhaustion tactics. It worked! But was it the autonomy or the exhaustion that broke Williams? From my limited understanding, exhaustion methods are the primary method that police use to gain confessions, and they usually work with first offenders that are scared and feel trapped, and afraid of reinforcing a perception of guilt by asking for a lawyer, something the police regularly exploit, as it really is an effective method.
In other areas, research is cherry picked rather than systematically presented, which distorts the neutrality of the views with selective conformation biases. This is a form of manipulation you would not expect to see from accomplished scholars.
The general lack of contextualisation was prominent throughout the book, and this can inevitably lead to denial of the existance of the underlying phenomenon. This was clear when referring to reactance, which there's a swath of research conducted on to explore how and why reactance is triggered and why it is not. Collectively, this research tells the story of a complex story that is admittedly less prescriptive but much closer to reality. Instead, it was discussed as if it's a universal reaction from all humans in all contexts when you express a restricting instruction or concern. While most of us intuitively understand that reactance is systemic and rarely linearly caused by a single behaviour.
The book does hint at the systemic balancing feedback loops that prevent lasting change, but it was never explored. Instead, vague advice like "figure out our relationship with [the thing we want to change]...to internalise the change" was provided instead. Therefore, little of the advice and guidance provided, even the more prescriptive aspects, were truly actionable, as no major paradigm or perspective shifts were presented.
That said, the underlying lessons of the book, although lacking depth, neutrality and contextualisation, were sensible and useful reminders of things we should remember to do and errors we should avoid. They're hard to disagree with: don't strip people or their autonomy, be clear and direct rather than attacking, be confident and assertive, show empathy...etc...
Also, the conversational skills of reflection were interesting and it highlighted conversational errors I make myself. I found the date conversation particularly interesting. I also really liked the SONAR framework and the "reflection trap door," and, collectively, the chapter was explained well, with actionable depth.
The animal circle model, on the other hand, went off the rails into insanity! To simplify the systemic set of variables that are related to the broader context of interaction to a flattened matrix with "power" and "intimacy" at their axes stinks of poor research! I've never yet seen an empirical study with a 2D matrix at its core that was properly designed. Sure enough, a quick search on Google scholar leads you to an empirical study on the "Interpersonal Behavior Circle" (IBC) model by the same authors. The IBC model was validated using a convenience sample of police interviews from UK Counter-Terrorism Units, which were manually coded. Other subsequent research conducted by the authors that referenced the model are related to police interviews with victims of crime and suspected criminals. Clear issues with external validity aside, there's no way to generalise the model to other contexts of interactions without some liberal imagination!
It then goes further off the rails when it asks "what animal are you most like?" This implies that the model relates to some genetic predisposition or psychological tendency to adopt a specific trait, rather than a contextual response to a system of internal and external triggers and influences. Then the "good" and "bad" animal behaviour....? It just wasn't helpful and was frankly an antiquated model. It was a shame to see so much of the book dedicated to it. It was later described as being designed for little children. It makes sense in that context, but makes you wonder, once again, what the heck the theme is in this mishmash of parenting, relationship, and (mostly) police-interrogation advice, and a why a model designed for young children was given such a prominent position in the book.
Overall, I have no idea for whom I would recommend this book. It tries to do everything yet does very little very well. The lack neutrality reduce the trustworthiness and generalisability of the underlying theories, and the lack of depth prevent actionable utility. The animal model made me want to throw the book across the room, and its constant focus on police and terror suspect investigations was a bazar mix with parenting and management advice.
This was evident in various aspects of the book. Such as 'be direct but not too direct' without discussing any objective measure for what 'too direct' or 'not direct enough' is. While we could easily associate it to avoiding threat responses from a neurocognitive perspective. A begrudging acceptance of a resolution that triggers a lasting, ruminating threat response isn't making your relationship any better either.
Various other aspects of the book were equally unuseful: be honest, show empathy, rapport matters, words matter... none of which you can disagree with, but they're not exactly beneficial to increasing either metacognitive awareness or interpersonal skills.
There were also some selective and biased examples used in the book, with little neutralising counter-evidence. For example, it mentions the importance of autonomy in eliciting change, and then uses the example of Colonel Russel Williams' interview with Sgt. Jim Smyth, arguing that exhaustion-inducing pressure tactics are ineffective next to autonomy, as if giving someone choice is a sweeping panacea that cracks even the most hardened and henious criminal into confession. However, as pointed out, Sgt Smyth continued at Williams for more than 4 hours, on minimal evidence, applying numerous mental exhaustion tactics. It worked! But was it the autonomy or the exhaustion that broke Williams? From my limited understanding, exhaustion methods are the primary method that police use to gain confessions, and they usually work with first offenders that are scared and feel trapped, and afraid of reinforcing a perception of guilt by asking for a lawyer, something the police regularly exploit, as it really is an effective method.
In other areas, research is cherry picked rather than systematically presented, which distorts the neutrality of the views with selective conformation biases. This is a form of manipulation you would not expect to see from accomplished scholars.
The general lack of contextualisation was prominent throughout the book, and this can inevitably lead to denial of the existance of the underlying phenomenon. This was clear when referring to reactance, which there's a swath of research conducted on to explore how and why reactance is triggered and why it is not. Collectively, this research tells the story of a complex story that is admittedly less prescriptive but much closer to reality. Instead, it was discussed as if it's a universal reaction from all humans in all contexts when you express a restricting instruction or concern. While most of us intuitively understand that reactance is systemic and rarely linearly caused by a single behaviour.
The book does hint at the systemic balancing feedback loops that prevent lasting change, but it was never explored. Instead, vague advice like "figure out our relationship with [the thing we want to change]...to internalise the change" was provided instead. Therefore, little of the advice and guidance provided, even the more prescriptive aspects, were truly actionable, as no major paradigm or perspective shifts were presented.
That said, the underlying lessons of the book, although lacking depth, neutrality and contextualisation, were sensible and useful reminders of things we should remember to do and errors we should avoid. They're hard to disagree with: don't strip people or their autonomy, be clear and direct rather than attacking, be confident and assertive, show empathy...etc...
Also, the conversational skills of reflection were interesting and it highlighted conversational errors I make myself. I found the date conversation particularly interesting. I also really liked the SONAR framework and the "reflection trap door," and, collectively, the chapter was explained well, with actionable depth.
The animal circle model, on the other hand, went off the rails into insanity! To simplify the systemic set of variables that are related to the broader context of interaction to a flattened matrix with "power" and "intimacy" at their axes stinks of poor research! I've never yet seen an empirical study with a 2D matrix at its core that was properly designed. Sure enough, a quick search on Google scholar leads you to an empirical study on the "Interpersonal Behavior Circle" (IBC) model by the same authors. The IBC model was validated using a convenience sample of police interviews from UK Counter-Terrorism Units, which were manually coded. Other subsequent research conducted by the authors that referenced the model are related to police interviews with victims of crime and suspected criminals. Clear issues with external validity aside, there's no way to generalise the model to other contexts of interactions without some liberal imagination!
It then goes further off the rails when it asks "what animal are you most like?" This implies that the model relates to some genetic predisposition or psychological tendency to adopt a specific trait, rather than a contextual response to a system of internal and external triggers and influences. Then the "good" and "bad" animal behaviour....? It just wasn't helpful and was frankly an antiquated model. It was a shame to see so much of the book dedicated to it. It was later described as being designed for little children. It makes sense in that context, but makes you wonder, once again, what the heck the theme is in this mishmash of parenting, relationship, and (mostly) police-interrogation advice, and a why a model designed for young children was given such a prominent position in the book.
Overall, I have no idea for whom I would recommend this book. It tries to do everything yet does very little very well. The lack neutrality reduce the trustworthiness and generalisability of the underlying theories, and the lack of depth prevent actionable utility. The animal model made me want to throw the book across the room, and its constant focus on police and terror suspect investigations was a bazar mix with parenting and management advice.
February 15, 2023
Niesamowite jest to, że w taki prosty sposób można sprawić, iż każda nasza relacją będzie o wiele bardziej wartościowa.
Myślę, że każdy powinien to przeczytać.
Myślę, że każdy powinien to przeczytać.
February 11, 2021
#Rapport - Emily & Laurence Alison
#Vermilion
#penguinrandomhouse
Rapport: ‘A harmonious relationship, characterized by agreement, mutual understanding and empathy’. In simple terms: there is rapport when two people ‘get’ each other.
The authors are husband and wife; both experienced professionals. Emily has been designing and delivering treatment for relationships that have broken down to violence and abuse for more than 20 years. Laurence has been the key psychological debriefer for more than 400 critical incidents, including the London 7/7 bombings; the Buncefield fire and the Boxing Day tsunami. Together they have trained top UK and US law enforcement, defence and security service personel.
Although very few (if any) of us are likely to become involved in political or criminal interrogation; critical debriefing or hostage negotiations, we are all (even the hermits among us) social animals; involved in personal and professional relationships where communication is key. In that sense rapport is relevant to everyone: to achieve agreement rather than reluctant compliance.
To reach that goal, the authors have applied their knowledge and experience to everyday relationships: couples; parent and child; co-workers; employer - employee, etc. Also included is the relationship between an adult child and an elderly parent; especially when the latter requires increasing assistance.
The book is divided into two sections: the first deals with rapport: the 4 requirements (honesty, empathy, autonomy and reflection) are explained in detail: why they are essential and how to exercise each. Certain thoughts I found particularly interesting, for example: the concept of ‘reactance’ (think of the smoker increasing his daily quota when nagged to quit); the tactic of persuasion reciprocity and the subsequent dilemma of proportionality and the influence of technology on communication.
The second part of the book explores and explains the 4 fundamental styles of communication, using totemic animals (T-Rex, mouse, lion and monkey) and highlights the interaction between them. A DIY test to determine the reader’s own style and the strengths and weaknesses thereof, is also included.
Points of criticism: the subtitle (the four ways to read people) is misleading; as explained above, that is not what the book is about. Repetition of information should also have been edited; quite often a mere cross reference or footnote would have sufficed.
It is, nevertheless, an interesting read and is recommended for anyone interested in the finer skills of communication.
4 stars from #Uitdieperdsebek
#Vermilion
#penguinrandomhouse
Rapport: ‘A harmonious relationship, characterized by agreement, mutual understanding and empathy’. In simple terms: there is rapport when two people ‘get’ each other.
The authors are husband and wife; both experienced professionals. Emily has been designing and delivering treatment for relationships that have broken down to violence and abuse for more than 20 years. Laurence has been the key psychological debriefer for more than 400 critical incidents, including the London 7/7 bombings; the Buncefield fire and the Boxing Day tsunami. Together they have trained top UK and US law enforcement, defence and security service personel.
Although very few (if any) of us are likely to become involved in political or criminal interrogation; critical debriefing or hostage negotiations, we are all (even the hermits among us) social animals; involved in personal and professional relationships where communication is key. In that sense rapport is relevant to everyone: to achieve agreement rather than reluctant compliance.
To reach that goal, the authors have applied their knowledge and experience to everyday relationships: couples; parent and child; co-workers; employer - employee, etc. Also included is the relationship between an adult child and an elderly parent; especially when the latter requires increasing assistance.
The book is divided into two sections: the first deals with rapport: the 4 requirements (honesty, empathy, autonomy and reflection) are explained in detail: why they are essential and how to exercise each. Certain thoughts I found particularly interesting, for example: the concept of ‘reactance’ (think of the smoker increasing his daily quota when nagged to quit); the tactic of persuasion reciprocity and the subsequent dilemma of proportionality and the influence of technology on communication.
The second part of the book explores and explains the 4 fundamental styles of communication, using totemic animals (T-Rex, mouse, lion and monkey) and highlights the interaction between them. A DIY test to determine the reader’s own style and the strengths and weaknesses thereof, is also included.
Points of criticism: the subtitle (the four ways to read people) is misleading; as explained above, that is not what the book is about. Repetition of information should also have been edited; quite often a mere cross reference or footnote would have sufficed.
It is, nevertheless, an interesting read and is recommended for anyone interested in the finer skills of communication.
4 stars from #Uitdieperdsebek
November 8, 2021
This isn't one of these books that teaches you how to manipulate someone.
Rapport is a simple, straighfroward and meant to improve your connection to other human beings. There are no paradigm shifting tricks given, you have to figure out your place on the spectrum of human interaction the two authors lay out and any given scenario will imply breaking out of your introvert shell in order to empathize and give your interlocutor the space he or she deserves to express his or herself. But that itself is a paradigm shift. Once you read the authors' wheel of animal interaction, you will see it everywhere in your life. This books is simple but great in the fact that it doesn't provide you with information or formulas, but affect how you think about information and formulas.
Rapport is a simple, straighfroward and meant to improve your connection to other human beings. There are no paradigm shifting tricks given, you have to figure out your place on the spectrum of human interaction the two authors lay out and any given scenario will imply breaking out of your introvert shell in order to empathize and give your interlocutor the space he or she deserves to express his or herself. But that itself is a paradigm shift. Once you read the authors' wheel of animal interaction, you will see it everywhere in your life. This books is simple but great in the fact that it doesn't provide you with information or formulas, but affect how you think about information and formulas.
May 4, 2024
Really interesting, very vivid and compelling storytelling alongside psychological insight. Really well narrated in the e audio book, will read/listen again!
August 12, 2020
Well organized, precise and helpful in order to master the socials skills necessary for more fruitful interactions in every day scenario. Rapport, a skill we all need.
Pros: Emily and Laurence are a couple of experts on the subject, with real experience.
They give a lot of examples and practical situations.
The method proposed and the principles are solid and based both on research and practice.
Well balanced theory with lots of practice.
Cons: first two chapters have a lot of reference to other authors and scientific articles, then it starts to decline. The last half of the book has few of them, it could have had more (my preference)
Pros: Emily and Laurence are a couple of experts on the subject, with real experience.
They give a lot of examples and practical situations.
The method proposed and the principles are solid and based both on research and practice.
Well balanced theory with lots of practice.
Cons: first two chapters have a lot of reference to other authors and scientific articles, then it starts to decline. The last half of the book has few of them, it could have had more (my preference)
February 1, 2024
My fav quotes:
- He suddenly stopped as if he’d just realised Mary Anne was a police officer.
‘You don’t give a shit, you’re just going to arrest me anyway!’ he said, eyeballing her, like a wild bull about to charge.
Mary Anne was a totem of calm and reassurance. ‘If we have to do that, we’ll do that, but right now I just want you to explain what’s happening. What’s your name?’
‘Thomas,’ the man said, sharp and suspicious.
‘OK Thomas, you got anything on you I need to know about?’ Mary Anne asked calmly.
‘No,’ Thomas muttered.
‘OK, turn out your pockets for me OK?’
‘Yeah, yeah – I know the goddamn drill!’ he barked back at her, turning his jean pockets out like little white flags.
‘Just tell me what’s going on. What’s happening?’ Mary Anne said, reassuringly.
‘I just want to speak to her. She won’t come out, she won’t see me, she won’t answer her phone, man! Have you got any idea what that’s like?! Somebody who’s your whole fucking world and then they just freeze you out! Aw, you don’t understand …’ Thomas slurred.
He was still very emotional, but now he was looking at Mary Anne like he might cry rather than try to kill her.
‘I get it – you feel upset and that made you pretty desperate, so you came down here to try to talk it out. Love makes people act a little crazy sometimes. But Thomas, when I pulled up you were threatening to kill her and burn the place down!’
‘Yeah, but that’s only ‘cause she wouldn’t come out!’ said Thomas, defensively like a child, as if this was an entirely reasonable response.
-Imagine that your dad is in his mid-seventies. He has always been extremely independent, physically fit and prides himself on being a capable, practical man. Recently, however, doctors suspect the onset of macular degeneration and his eyesight is starting to be affected. You are worried about his driving and that he might have an accident and be hurt or hurt someone else. Yet, you also know how much of a blow it would be to his independence if he could no longer drive. You can barely bring yourself to think about what the conversation will look like where you have to suggest to him that he stops driving. However, you also know in your heart that you cannot avoid it forever.
Imagine for a moment how you think the conversation will go. How will he react? Does the idea of initiating the conversation fill you with dread? If it does, you might find it very hard to just come out and say what you want to say. You might end up being hesitant or a bit opaque. You might try to drop hints about seeing a news article on testing eyesight in elderly drivers. Or you might ask him, ‘How’s driving going for you at the moment, Dad?’
Hmmm, what is his likely reaction to these comments? Confusion, suspicion, annoyance? Will he spot what you are trying to say and get angry? But don’t you need him to understand what you are trying to say anyway? How else will you get around to discussing it? But if you try to come at it in a way that is sly or indirect, when he does finally figure out the point of your question, odds are he will be doubly annoyed. Firstly he will be annoyed at the suggestion, and secondly that you were so vague and unclear about it. And isn’t his annoyance exactly what you are trying to avoid?
To improve those odds, let’s try to construct the conversation using the HEAR principles. Firstly, we must be honest and direct – no hedging or trying to hint that there is an issue. We need to be clear and upfront about what our concern is. Take a deep breath and get to the point.
We also need to show some empathy. Acknowledge that this is going to be a difficult conversation. You know him well enough to reasonably predict his reaction, so show some understanding of that. Acknowledge that he might feel defensive and angry at you for even bringing it up. When and if he is, be prepared for it – not offended by it.
This might look something like this:
You:Dad, I need to speak to you about something and I don’t think it’s going to be an easy conversation (empathy). I need to talk to you about your eyesight and how it might be affecting your driving (honesty).
Dad:(Without even looking up.) My eyesight’s fine and so is my driving. There’s no issue.
You:OK, but my concern is the macular degeneration. The doctor has said that it is progressing and starting to affect your central line of sight (honesty). I know how important driving is to you (empathy) and I think both of us would do anything to just make this go away (empathy), but I worry as it gets worse you could be at risk of an accident and you might get hurt or hurt somebody else (honesty).
Dad:(Looking up angrily, clearly irritated.) So you’re going to try to take my licence away from me? After driving for more years than you’ve been breathing without ever having an accident my own child is going to try to get me banned?!
Hmmm … he is angry and defensive, but you probably predicted that. Now this is the important bit: what is your instinctive response to his anger and defensiveness? Is it to say, ‘Dad, that’s not fair I’m only trying to help’ or ‘Dad, I’m not trying to get you banned – don’t be dramatic! Why can’t you just listen to what I’m saying?’
Now who’s being angry and defensive? Don’t let his reaction pull you into his style of communication. You knew it was coming, didn’t you? So, hold your interpersonal ground and stick to the HEAR principles: respect his autonomy to the maximum extent possible. This means trying to support him to make the choice to stop driving – don’t make it for him (unless there is simply no alternative due to the risk). Lastly, listen very carefully to what he says to you about the situation and reflect it back to show you are listening and that you understand. Be more tactical with how you respond, rather than just reacting back to him.
You: Dad, I can see you’re angry at me for bringing it up and it sounds like you feel as if I’m attacking you (reflection).
Dad: I know you’re not attacking me, but you are worrying over nothing.
You:I really hope so Dad. You’re right, you’ve never had an accident in all these years – you’re a superb driver (reflection), but there’s also no way round the fact that your eyesight is going to keep getting worse (honesty). At the end of the day, you’re the only one who can know if it is affecting you yet. I really want it to be your decision when you stop, not anyone else’s (autonomy).
Dad:I know. (Sigh.)
You:I just want us to be able to talk about it when it starts to become a problem (honesty). None of this is your fault (empathy), but the idea of you having an accident scares the life out of me (honesty).
Answer to ‘You seem a bit tense love, maybe you need to get laid.’
- STICKS AND STONES
Emily: I was once leading an assessment centre session with 20 or so men who had convictions for domestic abuse offences. As I was handing out paperwork and issuing instructions, Harvey, one of the younger participants, said, ‘You seem a bit tense love, maybe you need to get laid.’ He was sneering at me like a hyena as he said it, leaning back on the legs of his chair, with his arms behind his head, trying to look cool in front of the other men.
I could feel my emotional brain cringing in embarrassment and discomfort, as well as my face betraying me by going scarlet. Despite all this emotion churning around in my guts, my rational brain knew his comment was nothing to do with me or even to do with sex. It was to do with power. He felt powerless, awkward and judged, so he wanted to tip that power imbalance and pass some of that awkwardness back to me.
I must have paused for a solid five seconds, thinking about what to say next, gradually turning redder and redder. The room was full of tittering and laughter from the other men.
Finally, I said, ‘Harvey, why would you say something like that to me?’
‘Because I can help you out with that if you want …’ he drawled.
I paused again, amidst more schoolgirl tittering from the other men. I didn’t want to start an argument with him so instead I just reflected back to him what he had said: ‘OK, so let me get this right, Harvey. You’re saying I seem a bit tense and so you are offering, in the middle of your domestic abuse assessment session, to have sex with me to help sort me out. Have I got that right?’
One of the other men guffawed, loudly.
Harvey scowled back at me, ‘I don’t really want to have sex with you, love. Don’t flatter yourself.’
I replied, ‘Well, that’s good, because I don’t want to have sex with you either.’
Cue more tittering from the audience. ‘Now that we’ve established that you and I don’t want to have sex with each other, can we get on with what we’re here for?’ I said, holding out a handout for him. He took the paper from my hand begrudgingly and we got on filling it in.
It was an awkward situation and I still look back on it and cringe. But by reflecting back to Harvey objectively what he was doing (‘So what you’re saying is …’) it had neutralised the power struggle he was trying to create.
Reflection, while seemingly simple, is not often our instinctive reaction. It certainly wasn’t in this case. My emotional brain wanted to: a) ignore it and pretend it wasn’t happening, b) challenge it head-on by saying, ‘You’re being inappropriate – get out’ or c) hope the fire alarm would go off and rescue me. But none of those options would have solved my problem.
If I had done a) nothing, I would have looked weak. If I had chosen b) and tackled him head-on, it would have possibly escalated things, especially if he refused to leave.
It also might have made me look a bit dramatic and shrill to the other men who were avidly watching this awkward scene play out. It would then become a tactic to use against me – a challenge to see who could get me to turn the deepest shade of red each week. Instead, by simply reflecting back what he was doing, I was able to neutralise it and move on.
- He suddenly stopped as if he’d just realised Mary Anne was a police officer.
‘You don’t give a shit, you’re just going to arrest me anyway!’ he said, eyeballing her, like a wild bull about to charge.
Mary Anne was a totem of calm and reassurance. ‘If we have to do that, we’ll do that, but right now I just want you to explain what’s happening. What’s your name?’
‘Thomas,’ the man said, sharp and suspicious.
‘OK Thomas, you got anything on you I need to know about?’ Mary Anne asked calmly.
‘No,’ Thomas muttered.
‘OK, turn out your pockets for me OK?’
‘Yeah, yeah – I know the goddamn drill!’ he barked back at her, turning his jean pockets out like little white flags.
‘Just tell me what’s going on. What’s happening?’ Mary Anne said, reassuringly.
‘I just want to speak to her. She won’t come out, she won’t see me, she won’t answer her phone, man! Have you got any idea what that’s like?! Somebody who’s your whole fucking world and then they just freeze you out! Aw, you don’t understand …’ Thomas slurred.
He was still very emotional, but now he was looking at Mary Anne like he might cry rather than try to kill her.
‘I get it – you feel upset and that made you pretty desperate, so you came down here to try to talk it out. Love makes people act a little crazy sometimes. But Thomas, when I pulled up you were threatening to kill her and burn the place down!’
‘Yeah, but that’s only ‘cause she wouldn’t come out!’ said Thomas, defensively like a child, as if this was an entirely reasonable response.
-Imagine that your dad is in his mid-seventies. He has always been extremely independent, physically fit and prides himself on being a capable, practical man. Recently, however, doctors suspect the onset of macular degeneration and his eyesight is starting to be affected. You are worried about his driving and that he might have an accident and be hurt or hurt someone else. Yet, you also know how much of a blow it would be to his independence if he could no longer drive. You can barely bring yourself to think about what the conversation will look like where you have to suggest to him that he stops driving. However, you also know in your heart that you cannot avoid it forever.
Imagine for a moment how you think the conversation will go. How will he react? Does the idea of initiating the conversation fill you with dread? If it does, you might find it very hard to just come out and say what you want to say. You might end up being hesitant or a bit opaque. You might try to drop hints about seeing a news article on testing eyesight in elderly drivers. Or you might ask him, ‘How’s driving going for you at the moment, Dad?’
Hmmm, what is his likely reaction to these comments? Confusion, suspicion, annoyance? Will he spot what you are trying to say and get angry? But don’t you need him to understand what you are trying to say anyway? How else will you get around to discussing it? But if you try to come at it in a way that is sly or indirect, when he does finally figure out the point of your question, odds are he will be doubly annoyed. Firstly he will be annoyed at the suggestion, and secondly that you were so vague and unclear about it. And isn’t his annoyance exactly what you are trying to avoid?
To improve those odds, let’s try to construct the conversation using the HEAR principles. Firstly, we must be honest and direct – no hedging or trying to hint that there is an issue. We need to be clear and upfront about what our concern is. Take a deep breath and get to the point.
We also need to show some empathy. Acknowledge that this is going to be a difficult conversation. You know him well enough to reasonably predict his reaction, so show some understanding of that. Acknowledge that he might feel defensive and angry at you for even bringing it up. When and if he is, be prepared for it – not offended by it.
This might look something like this:
You:Dad, I need to speak to you about something and I don’t think it’s going to be an easy conversation (empathy). I need to talk to you about your eyesight and how it might be affecting your driving (honesty).
Dad:(Without even looking up.) My eyesight’s fine and so is my driving. There’s no issue.
You:OK, but my concern is the macular degeneration. The doctor has said that it is progressing and starting to affect your central line of sight (honesty). I know how important driving is to you (empathy) and I think both of us would do anything to just make this go away (empathy), but I worry as it gets worse you could be at risk of an accident and you might get hurt or hurt somebody else (honesty).
Dad:(Looking up angrily, clearly irritated.) So you’re going to try to take my licence away from me? After driving for more years than you’ve been breathing without ever having an accident my own child is going to try to get me banned?!
Hmmm … he is angry and defensive, but you probably predicted that. Now this is the important bit: what is your instinctive response to his anger and defensiveness? Is it to say, ‘Dad, that’s not fair I’m only trying to help’ or ‘Dad, I’m not trying to get you banned – don’t be dramatic! Why can’t you just listen to what I’m saying?’
Now who’s being angry and defensive? Don’t let his reaction pull you into his style of communication. You knew it was coming, didn’t you? So, hold your interpersonal ground and stick to the HEAR principles: respect his autonomy to the maximum extent possible. This means trying to support him to make the choice to stop driving – don’t make it for him (unless there is simply no alternative due to the risk). Lastly, listen very carefully to what he says to you about the situation and reflect it back to show you are listening and that you understand. Be more tactical with how you respond, rather than just reacting back to him.
You: Dad, I can see you’re angry at me for bringing it up and it sounds like you feel as if I’m attacking you (reflection).
Dad: I know you’re not attacking me, but you are worrying over nothing.
You:I really hope so Dad. You’re right, you’ve never had an accident in all these years – you’re a superb driver (reflection), but there’s also no way round the fact that your eyesight is going to keep getting worse (honesty). At the end of the day, you’re the only one who can know if it is affecting you yet. I really want it to be your decision when you stop, not anyone else’s (autonomy).
Dad:I know. (Sigh.)
You:I just want us to be able to talk about it when it starts to become a problem (honesty). None of this is your fault (empathy), but the idea of you having an accident scares the life out of me (honesty).
Answer to ‘You seem a bit tense love, maybe you need to get laid.’
- STICKS AND STONES
Emily: I was once leading an assessment centre session with 20 or so men who had convictions for domestic abuse offences. As I was handing out paperwork and issuing instructions, Harvey, one of the younger participants, said, ‘You seem a bit tense love, maybe you need to get laid.’ He was sneering at me like a hyena as he said it, leaning back on the legs of his chair, with his arms behind his head, trying to look cool in front of the other men.
I could feel my emotional brain cringing in embarrassment and discomfort, as well as my face betraying me by going scarlet. Despite all this emotion churning around in my guts, my rational brain knew his comment was nothing to do with me or even to do with sex. It was to do with power. He felt powerless, awkward and judged, so he wanted to tip that power imbalance and pass some of that awkwardness back to me.
I must have paused for a solid five seconds, thinking about what to say next, gradually turning redder and redder. The room was full of tittering and laughter from the other men.
Finally, I said, ‘Harvey, why would you say something like that to me?’
‘Because I can help you out with that if you want …’ he drawled.
I paused again, amidst more schoolgirl tittering from the other men. I didn’t want to start an argument with him so instead I just reflected back to him what he had said: ‘OK, so let me get this right, Harvey. You’re saying I seem a bit tense and so you are offering, in the middle of your domestic abuse assessment session, to have sex with me to help sort me out. Have I got that right?’
One of the other men guffawed, loudly.
Harvey scowled back at me, ‘I don’t really want to have sex with you, love. Don’t flatter yourself.’
I replied, ‘Well, that’s good, because I don’t want to have sex with you either.’
Cue more tittering from the audience. ‘Now that we’ve established that you and I don’t want to have sex with each other, can we get on with what we’re here for?’ I said, holding out a handout for him. He took the paper from my hand begrudgingly and we got on filling it in.
It was an awkward situation and I still look back on it and cringe. But by reflecting back to Harvey objectively what he was doing (‘So what you’re saying is …’) it had neutralised the power struggle he was trying to create.
Reflection, while seemingly simple, is not often our instinctive reaction. It certainly wasn’t in this case. My emotional brain wanted to: a) ignore it and pretend it wasn’t happening, b) challenge it head-on by saying, ‘You’re being inappropriate – get out’ or c) hope the fire alarm would go off and rescue me. But none of those options would have solved my problem.
If I had done a) nothing, I would have looked weak. If I had chosen b) and tackled him head-on, it would have possibly escalated things, especially if he refused to leave.
It also might have made me look a bit dramatic and shrill to the other men who were avidly watching this awkward scene play out. It would then become a tactic to use against me – a challenge to see who could get me to turn the deepest shade of red each week. Instead, by simply reflecting back what he was doing, I was able to neutralise it and move on.
January 28, 2025
Throughout this book you will learn how to master communication. Well explained thecniques will get you to be in control of yourself, set the agenda and identify behaviour. Great book to uplevel your game when it comes to negotiating.
October 29, 2024
Started reading this book with the high hopes that my friend, Jessica, would be joining me. I was so excited when she sent the title over through text, followed by the messages, "This book looks fun. Can you do a book session with me to keep me on track. READ IT WITH ME. We meet every week to discuss it LOLLL." I've been wanting to start "a book club" style get-together with my friends for the longest time, oftentimes hinting and nudging or joking around about the idea. I was trying really hard to imprint it onto them. I thought all my efforts paid off when I saw those messages, but I got my hopes up haha. It took me longer than usual to finish this book because I've also been grinding my way through Stephen King's 11/22/63 on paperback (half way through!). So, it's currently been a month; I have finished the book and started onto the next while Jess has unfortunately not even opened the pdf. What a shame...
3 stars total because 1 star for the utmost respect I have for the author and her husband. The work they do is truly incredible. Not only are they working with the most prolific offenders, but they are also deeply reflective and humble. They preach all these tips, theories, and practices but at the same time recognize that they are not perfect and have seen the ugly in their own relationships. Start #2 is for the snippets of criminal interviews embedded throughout the book which were all really interesting. However, sometimes I feel like the scenarios and ways to handle certain situations have been overly idealized, giving off the impression that if only you do 'this,' then you can achieve 'this' or avoid 'that.' Human reactions / responses are simply too unpredictable. I've tried one of these 'gentle' strategies, only to have it backfire on me. Maybe I could have done something different, but initially, I thought I had a valid point – one that was stemmed from what I have read.
What started out as a simple one question and one response interaction between my mom and I quickly resulted in an irritating push-and-pull scenario. As I was gathering my belongings and about to make my way upstairs for bed, my mom asked me "What time will you be waking up tomorrow?" I responded with "6:00 am." I honestly did not expect a response back, but the one that came took me by surprise. I was criticized for waking up at 6:00 am... the response was, in a rather dictative tone, "You shouldn't be waking up this early! It's bad for you." In that moment, I was like "What...are...you...saying..." So, I guess I pulled out my bad T-Rex side to match the bad T-Rex I was receiving in return. "Unlike Lion and Mouse where opposites attract, [the T-Rex and the Monkey] push apart [...] When we adopt a style of interaction that is about conflict and distance, we are inviting the same type of behaviour back. (pg.264-55). So I guess that's where it was headed... into Bad T-Rex territory. I tried to regain control of the situation. My mom always told me that we shouldn't use what we know and expect our parents to know it too. At the end of the day, we grew up in two wholly different generations; we fortunately had access to more education and information than they ever did so it is up to us to be patient and educate them when we saw fit. Taking her advice, that's exactly what I tried to do, but NOPE, my mother, like most parents, are hard walls to break through even if we are using their own advice against themselves. I explained that rather than responding to my 6:00 am reply in the way she did, she could have asked "Why are you waking up at 6 am?" This open-ended question could have invited me to continue the conversation and even reveal more about my day-to-day routine. She would have known that I wake up at 6 am because I like to accomplish x, y, z before heading out the door at 8:00 am. Of course, I would also want to sleep in a little bit, but through my own long-term experimentation, this is what works best for me. I didn't need a judgemental response that gave off the impression that just because you don't believe waking up at 6:00 am is worthwhile, doesn't mean you should judge others or disregard their routines. When I said this to my mom, her response was... it didn't matter. She said when it comes to parents, we, as children, should always understand that whatever our parents say is for our own good; their first instincts will always be for the health and safety of their children. So, when she told me to wake up later, she was thinking about my well-being first and foremost. I understand that parent care deeply for us, but as I said before, human reactions are unpredictable and will always surprise you. My mom probably thought I would read her mind and see/feel the care in her initial response, but NOPE, all I took away was nagging and senseless commentary.
Star #3 was for attributing each communication style to one of four animals: Lion and Mouse, T-Rex and Monkey, so seamlessly; matching the behaviours to what you may typically see in nature. The like and dislike repulsion factor was also an interesting take on it. My first thought while learning about these 4 animals was: "I wonder what type of animal would my parents be considered?" I've noticed that they both tend to have a default animal and change depending on the situations and the people they are with. To my brothers and I, my dad is most obviously the amiable and conflict-avoiding Mouse. However, to my mom, he switches drastically to a T-Rex or Lion character. It's extremely unfortunate that he immediately turns stone cold, cut down his empathy in half, and speaks 10x more harshly. Even if his intentions were not so, the way it's received aligns. My mom's style has been very fluid, especially after the birth of my youngest brother; she has been gradually changing to be more lax, adopting the Monkey and Mouse attributes.
Okay, I've decided to end my Review here for now because it's getting late and I want to sleep. Here are some quotes that stuck out to me though:
"I don't care whether they're lying, I only care whether they're talking." (pg.97)
"Children crave structure – it provides security, familiarity and reassurance at a level we don't have as adults." (pg.265)
"Great gains can be made not by learning new things but rather by removing bad habits that have been learned in the past." (pg.265) – the switch in mindset from 'What does this person need to learn?' to 'What does this person need to unlearn?'
3 stars total because 1 star for the utmost respect I have for the author and her husband. The work they do is truly incredible. Not only are they working with the most prolific offenders, but they are also deeply reflective and humble. They preach all these tips, theories, and practices but at the same time recognize that they are not perfect and have seen the ugly in their own relationships. Start #2 is for the snippets of criminal interviews embedded throughout the book which were all really interesting. However, sometimes I feel like the scenarios and ways to handle certain situations have been overly idealized, giving off the impression that if only you do 'this,' then you can achieve 'this' or avoid 'that.' Human reactions / responses are simply too unpredictable. I've tried one of these 'gentle' strategies, only to have it backfire on me. Maybe I could have done something different, but initially, I thought I had a valid point – one that was stemmed from what I have read.
What started out as a simple one question and one response interaction between my mom and I quickly resulted in an irritating push-and-pull scenario. As I was gathering my belongings and about to make my way upstairs for bed, my mom asked me "What time will you be waking up tomorrow?" I responded with "6:00 am." I honestly did not expect a response back, but the one that came took me by surprise. I was criticized for waking up at 6:00 am... the response was, in a rather dictative tone, "You shouldn't be waking up this early! It's bad for you." In that moment, I was like "What...are...you...saying..." So, I guess I pulled out my bad T-Rex side to match the bad T-Rex I was receiving in return. "Unlike Lion and Mouse where opposites attract, [the T-Rex and the Monkey] push apart [...] When we adopt a style of interaction that is about conflict and distance, we are inviting the same type of behaviour back. (pg.264-55). So I guess that's where it was headed... into Bad T-Rex territory. I tried to regain control of the situation. My mom always told me that we shouldn't use what we know and expect our parents to know it too. At the end of the day, we grew up in two wholly different generations; we fortunately had access to more education and information than they ever did so it is up to us to be patient and educate them when we saw fit. Taking her advice, that's exactly what I tried to do, but NOPE, my mother, like most parents, are hard walls to break through even if we are using their own advice against themselves. I explained that rather than responding to my 6:00 am reply in the way she did, she could have asked "Why are you waking up at 6 am?" This open-ended question could have invited me to continue the conversation and even reveal more about my day-to-day routine. She would have known that I wake up at 6 am because I like to accomplish x, y, z before heading out the door at 8:00 am. Of course, I would also want to sleep in a little bit, but through my own long-term experimentation, this is what works best for me. I didn't need a judgemental response that gave off the impression that just because you don't believe waking up at 6:00 am is worthwhile, doesn't mean you should judge others or disregard their routines. When I said this to my mom, her response was... it didn't matter. She said when it comes to parents, we, as children, should always understand that whatever our parents say is for our own good; their first instincts will always be for the health and safety of their children. So, when she told me to wake up later, she was thinking about my well-being first and foremost. I understand that parent care deeply for us, but as I said before, human reactions are unpredictable and will always surprise you. My mom probably thought I would read her mind and see/feel the care in her initial response, but NOPE, all I took away was nagging and senseless commentary.
Star #3 was for attributing each communication style to one of four animals: Lion and Mouse, T-Rex and Monkey, so seamlessly; matching the behaviours to what you may typically see in nature. The like and dislike repulsion factor was also an interesting take on it. My first thought while learning about these 4 animals was: "I wonder what type of animal would my parents be considered?" I've noticed that they both tend to have a default animal and change depending on the situations and the people they are with. To my brothers and I, my dad is most obviously the amiable and conflict-avoiding Mouse. However, to my mom, he switches drastically to a T-Rex or Lion character. It's extremely unfortunate that he immediately turns stone cold, cut down his empathy in half, and speaks 10x more harshly. Even if his intentions were not so, the way it's received aligns. My mom's style has been very fluid, especially after the birth of my youngest brother; she has been gradually changing to be more lax, adopting the Monkey and Mouse attributes.
Okay, I've decided to end my Review here for now because it's getting late and I want to sleep. Here are some quotes that stuck out to me though:
"I don't care whether they're lying, I only care whether they're talking." (pg.97)
"Children crave structure – it provides security, familiarity and reassurance at a level we don't have as adults." (pg.265)
"Great gains can be made not by learning new things but rather by removing bad habits that have been learned in the past." (pg.265) – the switch in mindset from 'What does this person need to learn?' to 'What does this person need to unlearn?'
March 18, 2024
Great book with practical advice on how to apply the techniques written on building rapport with different people in your daily life. I find that the examples given really does help in the visualisation of the techniques as they are highly relevant and applicable to real life. Additionally, the book classifies people into four different groups based on the way they communicate and suggests the best way to build rapport with each of the different communication style/group [so you can see how the techniques can be tweaked and customised based on the communication style of the individual you are speaking to].
Overall, I would recommend the book for those who are looking for new insights or practical tips on how to bud rapport with others.
Overall, I would recommend the book for those who are looking for new insights or practical tips on how to bud rapport with others.
August 15, 2023
Some very insightful advice, mainly that bullying and intrigue may get you what you want for a while but don't make interactions with other people fulfilling or beneficial in the long term. Actually, giving way here and there for the common good can often lead to happiness if done correctly. I have tried some of the suggestions and found them to improve situations greatly in a lot of cases. Some of the anecdotes that the authors include are fascinating and I could have done with more of these. Perhaps where this book falls down is that it imparts all that it has of any use with about half its length done and the rest is repetition and some rather reachy ackronyms.
February 24, 2023
A very interesting book and I appreciated the four animal model. Lots and lots of examples as is the fashion, and a glut of practical material at the end that was prose style and for which I’d have preferred more broken down practical actionable stuff. Doing the assessment at the beginning was very useful to identify my tendencies but (as my notes), a complete pain on Kindle as there’s scoring and addition. An online test would be far better! I’ll keep thinking about this one and try to remove my bad tendencies and improve my lacking good ones.
May 24, 2024
I had high hopes for this book based on the reviews, but unfortunately came away a bit disappointed. The first third of the book reviews fairly basic concepts for good communication, or at least basic to me as a former psych major. The remainder of the book was more interesting and had a few tidbits that will stick with me, but there was a lot of repetition. The best parts were the real-life examples that took the basic concepts to a whole new level that I can only hope to achieve with lots of practice.
August 30, 2023
My colleague recommended this book. I liked the different examples on how to turn around situations, especially when you may be in a heightend state. Like with most communication styles, there are four described, but as animals. I enjoyed the "good" and "bad" styles which explain the strengths and drawback of each style, as well as the need to flex and be adaptable. I think children could find these styles quite relatable.
October 20, 2022
I didn't know there is a whole science behind how we talk. I've spent too much time on a auto-pilot mode that I rarely care about what I ought to say or what the counter part might feel during this conversation. There must be further opportunities within each conversation. I just need to hone the skills to figure out the gold mines.
August 25, 2023
Life changing! My only disappointment is that I did not read this book sooner, years ago! This fantastic book has changed the way I look at interpersonal relationships and it will change the way I interact with others for the rest of my life! I highly recommend this book. My biggest takeaways are H.E.A.R and the Animal Circle. This book is incredible!
September 28, 2024
Whilst I didn’t enjoy the over simplistic use of animals for the four traits described through the book, it does make it more accessible to understand and see as you deal with people in life. I did find the book repetitive in a lot of areas unfortunately, and the latter half of the book dragged for me.
April 24, 2021
Whilst a good read, there was too much that did not resonate with me. The "animal" archetypes did not work for me, as models. I could not connect with them.
Also, there was way too many examples, and details, of parenting. As a non parent I could not relate to large sections of the book.
Also, there was way too many examples, and details, of parenting. As a non parent I could not relate to large sections of the book.
December 11, 2022
One of the best books i’ve read about conflict management and communication. It dives deep inti different scenarios between different relationships and showcase the bad and good behaviours.
September 6, 2023
Very informative with psychological insights and tips to make oneself more aware in social communication.
January 24, 2025
Mixed feelings about this book.
I liked its premise and found its mental models and processes interesting and helpful / practical. The intent here is positive. It's fairly easy to read with lots of varied examples. You come away with some new ideas about how to better manage interpersonal interactions.
All good, and yet, something about those messages were landed made it a grind to get through at times. It's longer than it needs to be as there's a lot of padded-out writing. This is especially noticeable at the start and end with lots of obvious and generic "life advice”. You know, the type of thing that you'd have to some sort of alien from another planet not to have worked out for yourself. Be more considerate of others, be honest with people, listen more and speak less, don't react angrily when someone provokes you, that sort of thing.
The tone of these often comes across as pompous and patronising and I found myself eye-rolling and skipping past these parts.
Much more useful and practical are their models - the HEAR principles (honesty, empathy, autonomy, reflection) and the animal circle (T-Rex, Lion, Mouse, Monkey). The book’s worth a read to get your head around these.
They're mostly well explained though at times the advice gets repetitive and contradictory - e.g. it'll say don't be judgemental, then say something else that sounds quite judgemental.
They give lots of examples, which helps with the readability and bringing the ideas to life, although they vary so wildly, it's hard to say how much they help overall. They swing from managing a stroppy teenager who's come home late without calling to dealing with terrorists who've planted IEDs and knife-wielding murderers.
I think the intent was to show the principles can work in any situation, but it oversimplifies things a bit here, and some of the examples read like amateurly written and overdramatic screenplays.
So, overall good and helpful ideas around this topic, but a bit too preachy and obvious at times to make it a great reading experience.
I liked its premise and found its mental models and processes interesting and helpful / practical. The intent here is positive. It's fairly easy to read with lots of varied examples. You come away with some new ideas about how to better manage interpersonal interactions.
All good, and yet, something about those messages were landed made it a grind to get through at times. It's longer than it needs to be as there's a lot of padded-out writing. This is especially noticeable at the start and end with lots of obvious and generic "life advice”. You know, the type of thing that you'd have to some sort of alien from another planet not to have worked out for yourself. Be more considerate of others, be honest with people, listen more and speak less, don't react angrily when someone provokes you, that sort of thing.
The tone of these often comes across as pompous and patronising and I found myself eye-rolling and skipping past these parts.
Much more useful and practical are their models - the HEAR principles (honesty, empathy, autonomy, reflection) and the animal circle (T-Rex, Lion, Mouse, Monkey). The book’s worth a read to get your head around these.
They're mostly well explained though at times the advice gets repetitive and contradictory - e.g. it'll say don't be judgemental, then say something else that sounds quite judgemental.
They give lots of examples, which helps with the readability and bringing the ideas to life, although they vary so wildly, it's hard to say how much they help overall. They swing from managing a stroppy teenager who's come home late without calling to dealing with terrorists who've planted IEDs and knife-wielding murderers.
I think the intent was to show the principles can work in any situation, but it oversimplifies things a bit here, and some of the examples read like amateurly written and overdramatic screenplays.
So, overall good and helpful ideas around this topic, but a bit too preachy and obvious at times to make it a great reading experience.
June 4, 2024
I enjoyed every minute of my time invested in reading this book.
I was hoping the typical answers like the body language, facial features and the like.... The answers I got are way more and deeper.
Its more about communication based on the HEAR principles (Honest, Empathy, Autonomy, and Reflection). Communication is more to listening more instead of more speaking. Listen to understand, not listen to reply.
I enjoyed reading these 2 authors' own experiences in dealing with their clients including the interrogation with the criminals and terrorists. There are more ways to get informations and to ask for their cooperation (criminals and terrorists) instead of using the methods of violence, shame and all other human degradation.
If these communication skills taught by these 2 authors can work on the criminals and the terrorists, this skill can surely be developed in the family and all other relationships. The authors even give examples on how to best applied this HEAR principles.
Another thing that I enjoyed the most is about our very own self awareness and also to read about the other people using the animal circle or known as 4Cs. Control (lion), Confront (t-rex), Capitulate (mouse), and Cooperation (monkey). All of us have all of these 4Cs and which one of them we naturally inclined towards. For instance, I'm naturally a cooperative person (monkey). However, when some situation arises which calls for my action, I need to put on the lion side of me which is to control the situation from becoming the all hell break loose.
There are more nuggets of wisdom found within this book. I love there are exercises in this book to better understand ourselves.
If you're studying for communication or psychology courses, I would highly recommend you to add this to your essential reading list.
Thank you Pansing Distribution Pte Ltd for this review copy in exchange for my honest review.
#marissamkreads #pansing #definitelybooks #letsgetreading #readingbringsustogether #nonfiction #bookstagram #bookstagrammer #bookstagrammalaysia #bookstagrammermalaysia #bukureview #reviewbuku #bookreview #bookreviewer #reader #igreads #instareads
I was hoping the typical answers like the body language, facial features and the like.... The answers I got are way more and deeper.
Its more about communication based on the HEAR principles (Honest, Empathy, Autonomy, and Reflection). Communication is more to listening more instead of more speaking. Listen to understand, not listen to reply.
I enjoyed reading these 2 authors' own experiences in dealing with their clients including the interrogation with the criminals and terrorists. There are more ways to get informations and to ask for their cooperation (criminals and terrorists) instead of using the methods of violence, shame and all other human degradation.
If these communication skills taught by these 2 authors can work on the criminals and the terrorists, this skill can surely be developed in the family and all other relationships. The authors even give examples on how to best applied this HEAR principles.
Another thing that I enjoyed the most is about our very own self awareness and also to read about the other people using the animal circle or known as 4Cs. Control (lion), Confront (t-rex), Capitulate (mouse), and Cooperation (monkey). All of us have all of these 4Cs and which one of them we naturally inclined towards. For instance, I'm naturally a cooperative person (monkey). However, when some situation arises which calls for my action, I need to put on the lion side of me which is to control the situation from becoming the all hell break loose.
There are more nuggets of wisdom found within this book. I love there are exercises in this book to better understand ourselves.
If you're studying for communication or psychology courses, I would highly recommend you to add this to your essential reading list.
Thank you Pansing Distribution Pte Ltd for this review copy in exchange for my honest review.
#marissamkreads #pansing #definitelybooks #letsgetreading #readingbringsustogether #nonfiction #bookstagram #bookstagrammer #bookstagrammalaysia #bookstagrammermalaysia #bukureview #reviewbuku #bookreview #bookreviewer #reader #igreads #instareads
April 8, 2021
A must-read for anyone interested in psychology books, as it provides a well-rounded view of interpersonal skills needed in all sorts of situations - from negotiations situations to making new friends (which could be argued to be yet another type of negotiation)
Alison not only provides a detailed framework for identifying characteristics of rapport-building and compartmentalizing them appropriately, but also presents them in an easily digestible and memorable way through the use of mnemonics and visual imagery. Compared to other psychology and interpersonal self-help books, this makes a tremendous difference in how easy it is to remember the concepts and apply them to daily life.
I genuinely appreciate the blending of personal experiences and real-life scenarios and studies with the easy-to-use classification of behavior (T-rex, Lion, Mouse, Monkey). Of course the reader is welcomed to use other names for these if they feel it detracts from their purpose, but I found it to be an excellent way to assimilate this framework. The tools to build rapport are clearly outlined and explained in specific contexts.
In all, a superb outline of the building blocks of creating rapport with others.
Alison not only provides a detailed framework for identifying characteristics of rapport-building and compartmentalizing them appropriately, but also presents them in an easily digestible and memorable way through the use of mnemonics and visual imagery. Compared to other psychology and interpersonal self-help books, this makes a tremendous difference in how easy it is to remember the concepts and apply them to daily life.
I genuinely appreciate the blending of personal experiences and real-life scenarios and studies with the easy-to-use classification of behavior (T-rex, Lion, Mouse, Monkey). Of course the reader is welcomed to use other names for these if they feel it detracts from their purpose, but I found it to be an excellent way to assimilate this framework. The tools to build rapport are clearly outlined and explained in specific contexts.
In all, a superb outline of the building blocks of creating rapport with others.
July 17, 2023
ขอเกริ่น ก่อนว่า
ตัวผมเองนั้นเป็นคนพูดไม่เก่ง ไม่ค่อยยิ้ม ไม่ค่อยมีมนุษยสัมพันธ์ที่ดี โดยตลอดระยะเวลาที่ผ่านมาผมได้หาหนังสือที่จะมากำจัดจุดอ่อนของผมเองมาตลอด ไม่ว่าจะเป็นการพูดคุยให้สนุก การให้คล้อยตามด้วยการฟัง การวิเคราะห์ การอ่านใจ
ในปีนี้ 2566 ผมได้มาเจอกับหนังสือเรื่อง rapport วิธีสร้างสัมพันธ์กับคนด้วยวิธีการพูดเเละอ่านใจ โดยใช้หลักการ hear ความซื่อสัตย์ ความเข้าอกเข้าใจ ความเป็นอิสระ เเละการสะท้อนความคิดในการสร้างสัมพันธ์กับผู้คน
เเละการจัดวางบทบาทตำเเหน่งการพูดไม่ว่าจะเป็นเราพูดไป หรือเค้าพูดมา การรับมือ โต้ตอบ จัดการสถานการณ์ต่างๆ ซึ่งได้เเก่ ที-เร็กซ์ การเผชิญหน้า หนู การโอนอ่อนผ่อนตาม สิงโต การควบคุม เเละลิง การร่วมมือ
หนังสือมีการยกตัวอย่าง การโต้ตอบ ในเเต่ละ
สถานการณ์ โดยหลักๆเเล้วจะเกี่ยวกับการทำงานมากกว่า เเละมีการใช้ชีวิตประจำวันมาร่วมด้วย ผมจัดให้เป็นหนังสือที่ดี คุ้มค่ากับเงินที่เสียไป เเละนำไปใช้ประโยชน์ได้จริง เหมาะกับคนที่พูดไม่เก่งเเบบผมมากๆ หากใครพูดเก่งก็สามารถนำไปปรับใช้งานได้อย่างคล่องเเคล่วในเเต่ละสถานการณ์
ปล. ผมได้บุคคลิกประเภทหนูมากที่สุด ทั้งดีเเละไม่ดี ครับ
ตัวผมเองนั้นเป็นคนพูดไม่เก่ง ไม่ค่อยยิ้ม ไม่ค่อยมีมนุษยสัมพันธ์ที่ดี โดยตลอดระยะเวลาที่ผ่านมาผมได้หาหนังสือที่จะมากำจัดจุดอ่อนของผมเองมาตลอด ไม่ว่าจะเป็นการพูดคุยให้สนุก การให้คล้อยตามด้วยการฟัง การวิเคราะห์ การอ่านใจ
ในปีนี้ 2566 ผมได้มาเจอกับหนังสือเรื่อง rapport วิธีสร้างสัมพันธ์กับคนด้วยวิธีการพูดเเละอ่านใจ โดยใช้หลักการ hear ความซื่อสัตย์ ความเข้าอกเข้าใจ ความเป็นอิสระ เเละการสะท้อนความคิดในการสร้างสัมพันธ์กับผู้คน
เเละการจัดวางบทบาทตำเเหน่งการพูดไม่ว่าจะเป็นเราพูดไป หรือเค้าพูดมา การรับมือ โต้ตอบ จัดการสถานการณ์ต่างๆ ซึ่งได้เเก่ ที-เร็กซ์ การเผชิญหน้า หนู การโอนอ่อนผ่อนตาม สิงโต การควบคุม เเละลิง การร่วมมือ
หนังสือมีการยกตัวอย่าง การโต้ตอบ ในเเต่ละ
สถานการณ์ โดยหลักๆเเล้วจะเกี่ยวกับการทำงานมากกว่า เเละมีการใช้ชีวิตประจำวันมาร่วมด้วย ผมจัดให้เป็นหนังสือที่ดี คุ้มค่ากับเงินที่เสียไป เเละนำไปใช้ประโยชน์ได้จริง เหมาะกับคนที่พูดไม่เก่งเเบบผมมากๆ หากใครพูดเก่งก็สามารถนำไปปรับใช้งานได้อย่างคล่องเเคล่วในเเต่ละสถานการณ์
ปล. ผมได้บุคคลิกประเภทหนูมากที่สุด ทั้งดีเเละไม่ดี ครับ
December 28, 2023
I really enjoyed this informative book on EQ and found it extremely helpful and practical. It is packed with relevant case studies (personal and professional) with many interesting mental models and frameworks (SONAR, HEAR, CALM, Etc). In particular, I found the animal circle scoring exercise a new and intriguing way to categorise personality styles. Very glad I got the hard copy given the level of annotation and dogearing of pages. Looking forward to referencing this again in the new year and beyond!
“You do not have to share their views but you do have to show genuine interest in what makes them tick without leaking judgement or opinion. You do have to keep talking rather than arguing to keep learning more detail until you genuinely understand their perspective.”
Work in progress.
“You do not have to share their views but you do have to show genuine interest in what makes them tick without leaking judgement or opinion. You do have to keep talking rather than arguing to keep learning more detail until you genuinely understand their perspective.”
Work in progress.
October 30, 2021
Has a very useful framework for improving interaction with others
The book makes lots of great points about the importance of avoiding loneliness, etc.
I have to be honest and say that I rolled my eyes a bit when I saw the four animal framework. However, the book is definitely worth persisting with and I am getting lots of useful takeaways from the detailed explanations and examples of how to apply the framework in interacting with people in all situations.
I’m going to certainly road test the approaches set out in the book and see where this takes me.
This is a book I’ll certainly want to re-read regularly to fine tune my communications.
The book makes lots of great points about the importance of avoiding loneliness, etc.
I have to be honest and say that I rolled my eyes a bit when I saw the four animal framework. However, the book is definitely worth persisting with and I am getting lots of useful takeaways from the detailed explanations and examples of how to apply the framework in interacting with people in all situations.
I’m going to certainly road test the approaches set out in the book and see where this takes me.
This is a book I’ll certainly want to re-read regularly to fine tune my communications.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 60 reviews