Making Great Conversationalists: Chapter Ten - Part Two

Steven and Teri Maxwell's book "Making Great Conversationalists" offers parents worried about their children's speaking skills a fool-proof way of teaching their kids to be brilliant speakers.  That's the premise of the book - but I'm wondering by this point if the real purpose of the book is to raise a generation of children as socially isolated as the Maxwell offspring are.   After all, the main themes in the book so far are "ignore nonverbal cues from other people", "demand information of the other person" and "prattle on about topics of interest to your family". If a kid has any friends around the same age as them, the next section of the chapter is filled with pieces of advice that should drive away their friends within days.

Topically, the chapter has covered naturally quiet kids, wanting to talk to kids their age instead of adults or "littles", the use of filler words, and angry responses from adults who don't appreciate being lectured to by 15-year olds.    This chunk teaches us about pride and shyness, people who interrupt, overly talkative people, mocking, criticism, gossip, crude words, and inappropriate questions.   I feel compelled to point out that these topics could be arranged thematically or in order of severity instead of being mixed together like a salad. 

Let's discuss pride and shyness first.  Obviously, in CP/QF land, any trait that is not attractive to parents is always rooted in some big shortcoming in the kid's personality.   To me, the logical issue behind shyness is anxiety.   Talking to someone you don't know well can be anxiety provoking for adults; it's even more nerve-racking for kids since this is a new skill.  CP/QF homeschool super-sheltered kids are at even higher risk for this because they don't get the conversational skills practice that traditionally schooled kids do when placed in a classroom of 15-30 peers and left to their own devices.    In the Maxwell world, the besetting sin that causes shyness is pride.   On the positive side, the Maxwells skip bashing shy kids for being prideful after the first sentence.  On the much more negative side, the Maxwells advocate pointing out shy children and how hard they are to talk to.  From that disturbing habit, kids are supposed to decide that they don't want to act like that shy kid and start talking.   There's no data to support this idea - not even a Maxwell story - and I'm highly skeptical it would work.  As a shy kid, I'd be more likely to take comfort in the fact that other people are shy too and that our combined shyness didn't cause the world to end.  When a reformed-shy kid meets a shy kid, the Maxwells recommend the following course of action:

If your child has struggled with shyness, he might be able to encourage the other child that he too was shy once, but God has helped him overcome it. He could share how happy is to be beyond that shyness. (pg. 166)

I really doubt blurting out a personal testimony about God's power in helping a person overcome shyness is going to matter at all to the under-5 crowd where shyness is most noticeable.  For kids older than that, there's a definite risk of offending them since the Maxwells are pretty extreme in their condemnation of shyness.   A confounding issue is that not everyone is highly social and very few people are open to a conversation at all times.   As an adult, I'm quite social once I've gotten the lay of the land at a new location.   When I first arrive in a new situation, though, I tend to hang back and wait to see what the social norms of the group are.   If the group is chatty, I'll chat.  If the group is quieter, I can be quiet, too.   Assuming that everyone and anyone is willing and able to chat with a Maxwellian follower simply because the Maxwellian follower wants to talk is absurd and self-centered.  The Maxwells, however, throw it back as a sign of sin in the other person:

Not speaking to someone, or ignoring them, indicate self-love. Your child appropriate response is not to be offended, but to pray for the other person, and to continue to try to break through communication barriers. (pg. 166)

I agree with the Maxwells that not talking all the time is a form of self-love.  I view self-love as a good, nay necessary, thing!  The Golden Rule is to love your neighbor as you love yourself - so clearly there is an assumption that we care for ourselves and make choices that are good for ourselves.    There is a different solution to the problem of trying to talk to someone who is not responsive: asking the person if they want to talk or not.   That's respectful of both people and acknowledges that the other person has agency.   The current Maxwell stance is far too self-important and too self-centered since there is never a point where kids are taught to be respectful of other people's wishes, wants or desires if those cravings are to avoid conversation with a Maxwell.

The next topic crams avoiding mocking, criticism and gossip into a single page.  For me, I clump mocking and negative gossiping into the category of discussions I avoid - but some gossip is positive and I welcome that!   I'm not comfortable with a blanket condemnation of criticism.  People learn to look at the world around them and see ways in which the world comes up short.  Criticism is simply recognizing that mismatch and thinking of ways to rectify it.   Constructive criticism from administrators, other teachers and students greatly improved my teaching skills.   Similarly, my husband and I give each other feedback on a wide variety of domestic matters.  Women and children in CP/QF land are disproportionately affected by lack of power.  One way to change that is to teach children how to provide constructive criticism at appropriate times.  For example, complaining that a field trip sucks is not very helpful because the complaint is very non-specific.  On the other hand, saying that having to wait for lunch until 2pm when lunch is usually at 12 noon  makes going to the zoo less fun is constructive criticism.   Well, I've now devoted more words to types of criticism than the Maxwells have so I should get back on track.   The Maxwells close by giving an example of how a kid could bring a conversation that has veered into mocking back to safe territory:

For example, a child might say something like this: "Hey, guys, I'm convicted about the way we are talking about what Danny wears. Maybe his family doesn't have money to buy him nicer things." (pg. 168)

I can't speak for Danny, but I'd honestly be less bothered by people being rude about my clothing than I would someone stopping the conversation by declaring that my family is poor.  At best, I'd be embarrassed by the public declaration that we were poor.  At worst, my defender has just said that the only defense for my clothing is dire poverty.  What if I just like that outfit or outfits?   Personally, I think the kid would have better luck if they said "This is boring.  Let's talk about ..." and inserted any topic other than Danny's clothes.

By the way, that quote is completely messing with my understanding of what the verb "to convict" means.   I thought it meant to have a deep and abiding set of principles about a behavior - but I don't see how that definition works in the quote.  I assume the writer meant that the kid was convicted talking about Danny's clothing was rude....but that's not clear from the quote alone.   I ask again that the verb form of "to convict" be allowed to simply stand for judicial proceedings.

In the next topic, the Maxwells recommend talking about God a lot or using the term "blessed" as a hedge against hearing crude or even curse words.     The Maxwells' rationale is that doing that will remind the other speakers to police their own words.  I can see where they are going with that - but this is a method that can backfire massively depending on the audience.   Personally, I watch my own speech and let other people do the same.  I avoid cursing in front of children and in business situations.   If I'm around other adults, I swear occasionally.  My live-and-let-live attitude is unknown to the Maxwells who gift us with this gem for use when cursing starts:

If that doesn't work, your child can interrupt the other person and explain that Jesus Christ is his Lord and Savior, and therefore, he doesn't want to hear those words. It is possible your child might have to choose to leave the conversation. (pg. 169)

Allow me to tell a quick story. 

At my college, all student organizations were required to have a student senate member who would attend monthly meetings for voting on items of varying importance to receive funding.  This requirement was ragingly unpopular and finding members of clubs to be the senate rep was like pulling teeth.  My junior year I missed the organizational meeting of Tri-Beta because I had my wisdom teeth pulled and was voted in absentia to the position of senate rep. 

I realized when I went to the student senate that there were about 5 members who enjoyed being a part of the senate and 40-odd reps who were either bored, checked-out or seething with rage.  The way this silent disinterest was shown was that most reps would vote "Abstain" instead of "Yes" or "No". 

 After a few months, the governmental board pitched a fit when a vote on some minor issue had 20 "Yes" votes, and 0 "No" votes with 20 abstentions.   One of the board members went on a verbal rampage about how reps were failing to do their moral duty....that abstain should only be used if there is a conflicting interest....failing the college and clubs.....I don't really remember the rest because I was really irritated at the amount of time being wasted.

We moved on to the next topic of minimal importance.  A vote was taken.  The measure passed with 10 "Yes" votes, "0" No votes, and 30 "Abstentions".   Pitching a hissy fit about abstentions caused 10 reps who normally voted "yes" or "no" to abstain with no people moving into the voting category.

Similarly, I probably wouldn't swear in front of a random stranger who dropped God into every sentence.  If said stranger started yelling at me about Jesus not wanting to hear swear words, though, I'd be dropping F-bombs like they were going out of style.

Of course, using the "Jesus doesn't wanna hear swears" will also greatly reduce the number of conversations that kid will be in once they've reached puberty, fyi.

Finally, the Maxwells share how to free a kid from tricky conversations where the kids are lured into theological conundrums like this:

When someone is trying to trick your child with foolish questions such as "Did Adam have a navel?" or "Can God make a rock so big he can't pick it up?" That individual has a hidden agenda. (....) Your child could say something like, "To be honest, that's a question that one doesn't really need to answer. The more important question to be able to answer, though, is where will you spend eternity? Have you thought about that question? Do you know the answer to it?"(pg. 170)

Surprisingly, my first irritation with this question comes from the Maxwells' cavalier dismissal of genuine theological questions.  American Fundamental Christianity has a tendency to dismiss out-of-hand both the study of theology and the history of the Christian churches outside of their own.  Both of those questions were not originally asked as questions to trap poorly educated Christians, but rather as ways of trying to deepen our understanding of religion as it interacted with science and logic.   The question about Adam is trying to reconcile a scientific understanding of how the umbilicus forms with the mythical understanding of the Book of Genesis.  And honestly, I'm not sure why that question would trip up a young Earth creationist since their answer is "no".   My answer would be "I doubt that was an important point in the story."   The question about God and a rock is trying to understand how God could be omnipotent in a physical world.   I don't have a great answer for that one either - and I have no problems saying so. 

I prefer to appear ignorant or backwards over assuming that everyone else has a hidden agenda.

Man, I'd be really hesitant to send a Maxwell out with a fall-back of "Quick! Ask pointed questions about the other person's salvation status if you are flustered".   I suspect - or perhaps I hope - that the Maxwells would be able to handle pushback against their own salvation status - but could they handle a fast pivot where the stranger points out that the Maxwells cannot know the salvation status of the stranger without blaspheming? After all, the Maxwells are not God and do not know what God's plans are for us all. That assuming that someone else is unsaved due to external features is exactly what Jesus reproached the Pharisees for? 

There is one more post from this chapter because the Maxwells decide to handle the really tricky topic of boy-girl conversations.   Because apparently conversations between boys and girls can be...really....tricky.