Communication Breakdowns

      . . . in support of mutually satisfying communications, of communication mastery, of manifesting your stated intentions.

When there is a breakdown in communication between two, when the results are less than desirable, it can always always be traced to one of the following communication variables.  

  • acknowledgments
  • incompletes
  • integrity
  • perpetrations
  • responsibility
  • withholds

All (yes all) breakdowns in communication between two can be traced to the fact that both are using their own home-grown definition of the word responsibility; specifically, the word "cause" is missing from their definition; both are stuck in blame.

What's mind-boggling—I know of no university speech-communication curriculum for education majors that addresses these variables, yet each serve as a barrier to communication, to manifesting ones stated intentions; for teachers this would mean, every student's homework turned in neatly on time and, that no college or university freshmen would require remedial courses.

We unconsciously create breakdowns and thwartings (including "accidents") to remind us that we are out-integrity (not whole, not complete), that we are dragging around remnants of prior incidents, interactions or conversations. These leftovers are referred to as incompletes (prior communications that were not mutually satisfying). Each present-day breakdown, each time someone (or "the universe") thwarts us, it gives us an opportunity to restore our integrity, to complete a prior interaction, one in which someone else is most likely also incomplete because of the way we interacted with them. 

Our mind becomes clouded with incompletes,* —so many that we are no longer sharp, we're not in present-time.  Usually our knee-jerk reaction is to blame the other person for the breakdown; in truth, it's never ever the other person.

[ top ]

Examples of breakdowns:

Supervisor says; "We start work at 8:00 a.m." The employee is late.

Parent says; "Time for homework." The child keeps watching TV.

Teacher says; "The homework is . . . it's due Friday." Several students don't hand it in on time.

Friend says; "I'll pay you back on payday." They don't.

A couple vows; "Till death do us part." They end up divorced.

With each of these examples we see that the results were other than envisioned; we see that none meant what they were saying and/or implying. None were telling the truth yet each believed they were. Each agreement-maker had no conscious intention for the agreement-breaker to perform as expected; we know this to be true based upon the results their leadership-communication skills produced. Note also the purposeful use of the words "says" and "vows" as opposed to communicates. When agreements, (instructions) are communicated, they are co-created.

Clarification: At first glance one might argue that, with the exception of the employee, none of the others had co-created a verbal or written agreement to perform as expected; however, what they all did have was an implied agreement to be instructed, to do as asked, to honor their word. I.e.  Few married couples are aware that they have an agreement to return home each evening yet both know that breaking that implied agreement will trigger worry, upset, and anger.

With each of the above incidents the agreement-breaker mirrored the integrity of the agreement-maker; and, the agreement-maker mirrored the integrity of the agreement-breaker. Both had been dragging around a lifetime of verbally unacknowledged perpetrations into each new conversation. These thwartings and broken agreements (these  abuses) with others, are referred to as incompletes. These incompletes now serve as barriers to the experience of communication, of being in present-time. The agreement-maker's integrity was such that they needed to have someone mirror for them their out-integrities, life's unacknowledged perpetrations.

Most people arrogantly think there are no consequences for their first lie, first abuse, first deception (specifically those that have not been acknowledged and cleaned up through to mutual satisfaction). This is partly due to the fact that karma is not always instant; instead, as one would have it, it is always timely perfectly appropriate. Most everyone has an experience of their first lie after which God didn't instantly strike them down. There is always an undesirable consequence for an unacknowledged perpetration. We accumulate so many unacknowledged perpetrations we don't associate a malfunctioning car, a headache, an accident, or another's abusive broken agreement with us, as a consequence of any single specific out-integrity of our own. People who play the maintaining ones integrity game  affirm that [. . . life works much smoother "now" with fewer broken agreements and accidents; one reason is that I (or the "God" in me) no longer need to pay myself back for unacknowledged abusive perpetrations].

The above agreement-maker (the supervisor, parent, teacher, friend, or the fiancé) was so unconscious that he/she couldn't tell that the other was unconscious also; both were doing their imitation of communication.**

The premise—when one is clear about his/her intention they communicate consistent with manifesting their stated intention—as such the results are always mutually satisfying. Conversely, when one is not clear about an intention they get a result, an unconscious intention, it's just not the one they envisioned.

[ top ]

It is both irresponsible and unethical to create the illusion of an agreement with someone not committed to keeping agreements; to do so is to set the person up to fail even more in life.*** It's easy to see that agreement-breakers always pay themselves back, they unconsciously intend their own consequence, if only by unconsciously intending that others thwart them. What's not commonly known is that there are undesirable consequences for those who create the illusion of an agreement, ergo, few teachers experience joy and happiness throughout the day; in part because they are unaware of their cause of the breakdown in communication with a student, for a student not turning in his/her homework neatly and on time.

Let's use the above first example of a breakdown, a common one between a parent and child. A parent says, "Time for homework." Later the parent notices that their child is still watching TV.

First, we see that the parent had no intention for their child to recreate their instruction. We know this based upon the result the parent produced.  The parent had lapsed into doing his/her imitation of communication. Unfortunately a parent usually gets angry and blames the child for their (the parent's) failure to cause communication to take place.

Secondly, unbeknownst to the parent the child had his/her own intention; the child is/was unconsciously drawing attention to the fact that there is an incomplete in the space. Something other than the TV was occupying the space between the parent and child and so communication couldn't take place until it (the incomplete) is acknowledged and therefore completed. When a child thwarts a parent the child is drawing attention to the fact that they (the child) have one or more perpetrations (incompletes) for which they have not been acknowledged. There are no exceptions to this phenomenon. (Read Clearing Process for a Parent and a Young Person/Teen)

It's important to note that this was not the first time the child didn't "behave" —didn't do as they were asked/told. It began with incident number one; an earlier and similar incident, one in which the parent didn't locate the source of (didn't find out what the child's thwarting behavior was communicating non-verbally). Quite often children dramatize disrespects, upsets, and perpetrations, by misbehaving, thwarting, failing, or even getting sick. When all else fails they enroll their teacher or even the police (Columbine) so as to restore the experience of communication that once was.

[ top ]

Dramatization of a perpetration:

"Did you brush your teeth?" The child lied and said, "Yup." To this very day the child has yet to be acknowledged (caught) for their first lie. It wasn't by accident that the child used the word, "yup" as opposed to the usual, "Yes Mommy" with its concomitant communication of respect. The unconscious mother, having similar incompletes, didn't hear that very first lie; she is ignorant about the effects of verbally unacknowledged perpetrations so her child drags around the guilt, sometimes for life. Misbehaving or failing in life and relationships is a child's attempt at recreating the experience of integrity, of communication, of love.

[ top ]

Dramatization of an upset:

Previously the mother had yelled abusively at her child. The abusive communication triggered an upset for the child. The relationship is said to be incomplete because the mother has yet to acknowledge, to herself or her child, that she knows she communicated abusively. The child knows what it's like to be in-communication with his/her mother and it hasn't happened since before the yelling—possibly even earlier. The child, to draw attention to the hurt, the incomplete (the absence of the experience of being in-communication), begins to pout and thwart and express an attitude. All teen "attitudes" can be traced to an incomplete; again, there are no exceptions to this phenomenon.

Using this example we see that the child is unconsciously thwarting the parent. Given that children who are whole and complete are automatically driven to please parents, we ask, what is now driving the child to thwart their parent? If incompletes are not completed a child will often marry someone of whom his/her parents will disapprove. The mind, to be right, and to make a parent wrong, will slowly (just short of suicide) destroy itself by unconsciously resigning itself to a life of mediocrity. It does this with smoking, drugs, unhealthy food and relationship choices; if the child was successful, happy and prosperous the parents might think they did a good job. The greatest gift a parent can give a child (any age) is for the parent to first do The Clearing Process and then do The Clearing Process for Parent and Child with their child each evening.

[ top ]

Here's a thought-exercise for someone without a child: Can you imagine what must be going on in the mind of a parent who just read what you have and they refuse to do The Clearing Process for their child?

* It takes a person training to become a Communication Workshop Facilitator about 60 hours (individual 3-hr sessions, over a period of weeks) to empty his/her mind of life's incompletes—to be acknowledged for all good and bad deeds.

** Here's more about, imitation of communication.

*** Health care professionals often "make" agreements, (appointment dates) with clients who are not committed to honoring agreements, to being whole and complete.  If a therapist dumps the "illusion of an agreement" in a client's space it causes both the therapist and their client to continue failing—as in—the blind leading/conning the blind. When a well-crafted, co-created, performance (appointment) agreement is not kept it creates space for conversations about integrity as a cause for undesirable physical and mental health results. Read Conversations in Support Of Health.

[ top ]


v 6.3

Bewith Test

Notice which sentence
causes you to want to
stop reading—
something about that
subject is your barrier
to consistently
manifesting the results
you say you want.
Bookmark this page
and come back later to 
see if you can be with
each sentence without
it triggering an upset
 or judgment.


for elaborations












 more topics

 Close all Popups

Popups by CoolTip


If you found this to be of value please click the Of Value button (Upon pressing the button the page quickly refreshes as though nothing happened)

For permission to quote please Contact Us. Permission, with an agreement to acknowledge the source of the quote, is always granted.

Sponsored by Community Communications, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) education organization

[ top ]

Press your browser's back button to return to the page you came from.