Interview with Michael Kahn

Introduction by Richard Farson

Welcome to our interview with the distinguished psychologist, Michael Kahn. Michael is an old friend of mine, and I must say I have developed such respect for him that I cannot imagine there are many in his league. He entered Harvard at the beginning of World War II, but dropped out soon to join the Air Force, becoming a B-24 bomber pilot flying missions over Germany. He returned to Harvard for his bachelors degree then became an actor. After a number of years in that profession, he returned to Harvard to get a PhD in psychology. He taught there, then at Yale, then at the University of Texas, then at the University of California Santa Cruz, where he is Professor Emeritus of Psychology. After an early retirement he moved to San Francisco and taught at Antioch University and then at the California Institute of Integral Studies. He is an adored teacher, an expert on Freud, on psychotherapy, on small group behavior, and practically every subject his broad ranging intellect touches. The Christopher Reynolds Foundation he heads is working to end the war in Iraq and straighten out our relations with Cuba. He has chosen to focus the interview on the subject of one-upmanship. We are very fortunate to have him as a new Fellow in the ILF, and as our current interviewee. So welcome, Michael.

Response 23 : 1 Richard Farson Mar 03
Michael, with all the subjects you know about, ranging from aviation to theatre to unconscious motivation, and especially your interests in Iraq and Cuba, why did you decide to focus this interview on the subject of one-upmanship?

Response 23 : 2 Michael Kahn Mar 03
Stephen Potter, who coined the phrase one-upmanship, presented it in a series of dead-pan British-humor books. Even readers who were delighted by the books thought he was kidding. He wasn’t. He is a trenchant social critic on the order of Jonathan Swift and every bit as important.

Potter proposes that whatever game I pretend to be playing- reasonable conversation, scholarly exploration, discussion of a movie, the underlying game is likely to be the struggle for the one-up position. The only way for me to feel confident I am one-up is to succeed in putting you one-down. If one accepts Potter’s view that the game is ubiquitous, it can be seen that it is an omnipresent disaster, interfering (for openers) with love, friendship, and learning. This has wide-reaching implications: racism for instance.

This ubiquitous game creates an interpersonal world that I really dislike and would like to change, at least in my little neighborhood. For the last many years my teaching has been dedicated to a striving for this change.

In case one might think this is trivial, there is increasing evidence that the neo-cons got Bush to agree to invade Iraq by persuading him that his father wimped out and let Sadam get away. Father was a war hero and star athlete. You can imagine how one-down to him his loser of a son felt. Now here was a wonderful opportunity to one-up the old man. The rest is a history that will live in infamy.

Response 23 : 3 Kip Winsett Mar 03, 2008
Hi Michael, welcome to ILF and thanks for giving us the opportunity to interview you on a subject that is so clearly part and parcel of most human interaction. Two questions arise immediately upon reading your first comment:

1. Is this behavior simply part of human nature - endemic to all peoples in all cultures at all times (unless, of course, one learns how to avoid it)?

2. Can we learn to avoid it and what would be the risk and reward to doing so?

Response 23 : 4 Richard Farson Mar 03, 2008
I know one way to avoid it, and I've learned it from you, Michael. I have watched you countless times in situations where, for example because of your experience in the theater you understand Shakespeare far better than most of us, you make sure that the person you are engaging in conversation about the bard is given the necessary background "reminder" to be able to not only understand what you are saying, but equips that person to be able to comment more or less on an equal platform to you. The way I'm writing this may make it sound just like another Stephen Potter game, but having experienced it many times, it doesn't feel that way. One doesn't feel one down, even though we may have all along been aware of your expertise.

Maybe you can elaborate on that.

Response 23 : 5 Raymond Alden Mar 03, 2008
I echo Kip's first question, with a small twist: Is this ingrained DNA-type behavior, or do we teach this to our children?

Dick's comment reminds me of the time when I made a first-time call on the president of a small company that we had either just acquired, or were about to, or were trying to -- I really don't remember which. He took me into his office, pointed out that he had put his desk and chair on a platform four inches above the floor, and "explained" that it put him at an advantage when talking with his staff, or any employee, union representative, or whatever.

Whatever we were planning to do with that guy didn't work out.

Response 23 : 6 Michael Kahn Mar 03, 2008
Hi, Kip.

Thanks. I see that there is at least one very wise anthropologist in this group. Maybe others? I would be very interested to hear their answer to your important question. Do you think that the one-up impulse is always a tendency that has to be overcome because of the natural selection factor? Has it always been the case that dominant males have a procreation advantage and that the offspring of dominant males and females a survival advantage?

Perhaps your second question is similar to the Zen question: Can we find ways to reduce the domination of our ego? It seems to me that the answer to that is ,"Yes, and it is the most difficult spiritual-growth task of all." Alan Watts in "Psychotherapy, East and West," takes the position that to be free of the one-up game is to be enlightened in the fullest spiritual sense of that word. I guess that speaks to the reward. I confess I can't see a risk. I think it would be huge relief to get out of the game altogether. It certainly would be for me.

Response 23 : 7 Michael Kahn Mar 03, 2008
Thanks, Ray. Do you remember Charlie Chaplin and Jack Oakie playing that exact game as Hitler and Mussolini in "The Great Dictator?"

Response 23 : 8 Michael Kahn Mar 03, 2008
Dick: Thanks. How would it be if we entered every conversation paying attention to how we hope the other person will feel during and after? I certainly want her/him to feel engaged and stimulated. I also want her/him to feel smart and respected. I hope that after the conversation they will feel they have been engaged with a person who is interested in them and stimulated by them. I think this is ESSENTIAL for a teacher talking to a student. I wonder if it would be a good orientation for all of us all the time?

I hope the following is alright to say here. Please tell me if I'm out of line. After I have made love to my wife, I hope she feels more beautiful than before and more cared about than before. If you substitute 'smart' and/or 'interesting' for 'beautiful.' would that be a good attitude with which to enter a conversation?

Response 23 : 9 Raymond Alden Mar 03, 2008
Interactions with others in the normal course of business, I view from a mercantile point of view -- and apply it to non-commercial circumstances. Make the other person glad that the exchange took place. Not much different from the stage aphorism: Send them away laughing.

I have long argued (and never convinced anyone), and genuinely believe, that it is not possible to gain more than a short-term advantage at the expense of another. Long-term, only win-win works to anyone's advantage. Hence, there is nothing permanent to be gained by putting down another.

Sometimes, of course, the sheer pleasure of the experience is irresistible. <g>

Response 23 : 10 Richard Farson Mar 04, 2008
Michael, your description of a posture all of us could take in thinking about whether the people we engage will feel better about themselves after our encounter makes me think about the posture of good hosts. While they keep themselves out of the spotlight as much as possible, they try to arrange the circumstances in which their guests will be at their best. Some people, including me, have compared being a good manager to being a good host, and there is a literature on management as serving the group. I guess we have some New Testament support for that too, but it isn't just humility (washing the feet of your friends) that you are talking about, is it Michael? You're talking about the design of a relationship that requires more than humility, right?

Response 23 : 11 Kip Winsett Mar 04, 2008
I liked your example Michael and it's certainly OK for this space. In thinking about this last night, Michael, I realized that sometimes I might not know how to make the other person feel good - certainly a risk of failure for me is possible.

When I thought about that I realized that it might be helpful to have a few techniques to get started with in the beginning. Any suggestions?

Response 23 : 12 Michael Kahn Mar 04, 2008
Kip, here's one we've experimented with at Santa Cruz: Put the tiller in the other person's hand.

A: The only fair solution to our social and economic problems is a steeply progressive income tax.

B; Bad idea. Saps motivation and engenders class-warfare.

A: Okay,I can see that. Could you develop that a little more for me?

Ray says one does not gain advantage at the expense of another. Similarly I don't think one ever learns from arguing. If A and B try to build a theory to which they can both subscribe they will have given themselves an opportunity to think freshly. B feels respected and A feels good about having stretched his own viewpoint.

Response 23 : 13 Richard Farson Mar 04, 2008
Michael, that answer offers a "technique" that might work for awhile, but wouldn't it backfire eventually unless the person has and demonstrates a genuine interest in hearing that point of view more fully?

Response 23 : 14 Kip Winsett Mar 05, 2008
Michael, I have the sense that one-upsmanship is pretty deeply ingrained in us (to the point of being, for the most part, an unconscious behavior). This probably makes it very hard for anyone who is new to the subject to actually catch themselves doing it. What linguistic or behavioral patterns might we watch for both in ourselves and others in order to bring this into our awareness?

Response 23 : 15 Michael Kahn Mar 06, 2008
Thanks, Kip. I think the problem is motivation. My students and I have been trying to train ourselves to keep before us the question; "Do I want to... or do I want to win? Do i want to learn or do I want to win? Do I want to love or do I want to win? Do I want us cooperatively to make the best possible plan, or do I want to get credit for my contribution ? We have found that it quickly becomes pretty clear that we can choose growth or victory. It is often very hard for me to bring myself to pass up an opportunity for victory, but when I make the one-up choice I do know I am doing it. I am trying to learn to be a Zen student. If I ever do learn that, that should help.

Response 23 : 16 Kip Winsett Mar 06, 2008
I like those questions Michael - they offer possibility without being too strident. Our culture (well perhaps most cultures) rewards competition pretty dramatically while cooperation is less obviously rewarded. That seems to me a curious state of affairs. What's your take on this?

Response 23 : 17 Raymond Alden Mar 07, 2008
"Do I want to... or do I want to win?"

I like that!

Contrast it with "Don't get mad, get even!" which tends to dig the hole deeper.

It also brings to mind that motto on the desk of some president, long ago:

"There's no limit to what can be accomplished if it doesn't matter who gets the credit."

It also brings to mind the oft-repeated pattern observable in our official reactions from State Dept publicists to most any development in or about Israel or Iran or Russia: Complain that it has negative consequences, or doesn't go far enough, or whatever. Never a move toward saving face for the other side, thus making further progress more difficult.

Response 23 : 18 Lincoln Bloomfield Mar 07, 2008
The issue of making others feel good rather than put down reminds me of a story I heard about FDR years ago. He told an interviewer that he had always been a nervous public speaker and it finally occurred to him that it was because he was always worrying about his impact on the audience, i.e. he was focused on making himself feel "on top". His epiphany came when he realized that the road to relaxation was to channel the audience members and feel for them, i.e. their own worries about being outclassed by the speaker etc. It worked.

Response 23 : 19 Richard Farson Mar 08, 2008
Michael, given the direction of Ray's and Linc's comments, I wonder if you have applied your thinking about one-upmanship to matters of diplomacy and foreign relations.

Someone wrote me today about how the Freedom Tower (our super-tall architectural response to the 9/11 destruction of the World Trade Center) seems to her like a giant finger flipping to the other nations. Any reaction?

Response 23 : 20 Michael Kahn Mar 09, 2008
Kip, I am puzzled about the relative survival values of competition and cooperation. As I look at the world now it seems competition is reinforced and cooperation is not. There is a position, I believe, that hold that was not always true. The hunter-gatherers had to cooperate to survive, so perhaps that impulse is still in us, buried down there somewhere. I think there is a real emotional reward to cooperation. I wonder if the following is a matter of individual difference: I used to be a tennis payer. Long before I stopped playing, I gave up keeping score. I found i got no pleasure from winning a point, whereas keeping the ball in play for a long rally gave me real pleasure. I feel that way about conversation. I really hate argument; I learn nothing from it. Whereas I learn a great deal if I open myself to the other person's point of view. I would be very interested in your opinion: is this a matter of individual difference?

Response 23 : 21 Michael Kahn Mar 09, 2008
Lincoln, that's a great FDR story. Do you think a corollary of that position is that much is gained (in giving a speech) by giving the listeners the message that your goal is to allow them to feel smart and respected, and never to show them how smart you are?

It occurs to me that many (most?) middle class kids are rewarded by their parents for just that: showing how smart they are. That may be hard to unlearn.

Response 23 : 22 Michael Kahn Mar 09, 2008
Richard-My foundation colleagues and I think all the time about the terrible irresponsibility of playing one-up with he lives of millions. When we were working on he Vietnam embargo, we were appalled at the pettiness and sulkiness of the U.S. government. We lost the war and were therefore one- down. Now how could we get one-up, at least a little bit? We began to refer to the U.S. government as "junior high school on the Potomac." Now that we're working on U.S.-Cuba relations, it is equally awful. After 50 years we know well that the embargo is to Castro's advantage and only hurts the Cuban people we profess to care about. It's now nothing but a very low level one-up game. The same is true of the travel ban.

And it seems equally true that the Bush policy of not talking to anybody at whom we're angry is low level one-upmanship.

I love your image of the Freedom Tower being a giant flip-off.

Response 23 : 24 Kip Winsett Mar 09, 2008
Michael, I read a very interesting book a few years ago titled "Nonzero: The Logic Of Human Destiny", which uses game theory to develop a philosophy of history. The author, Robert Wright, presents a lot of examples of cooperative and collaborative behavior and he is rather inclined to believe that cooperation is somewhat more prevalent than cooperation. It depends, I suppose, on where you focus.

I found your tidbit about tennis very interesting because I adopted the same position in ping pong many years ago. When we give up the competition, the interaction becomes a beautiful and deeply intimate dance. Perhaps it is the "intimacy" that some people find difficult?

Although, now that I think of it, friction is a fundamental part of intimacy on the physical plane. Have you given that any thought?

Response 23 : 25 Richard Farson Mar 09, 2008
Rallying in tennis, where you hit the ball so that your "opponent" can return it calls into play very little of what most of us would call tennis, which involves complicated strategy and extreme physical activity to make a shot that our opponent cannot return. So while one can have a friendly workout with a tennis ball, it isn't the game of tennis and doesn't call upon us for our experience, reading of the situation, or pushing ourselves to the limit of our physical and mental skill and endurance.

When great athletes are playing each other, and playing at their best, they "enter the zone." Basketball star and Celtics coach Bill Russell said that sometimes when several players on both teams would get hot, and the game would become so absorbing and intense, at that moment he wouldn't care who won or lost. He said the game would "levitate" and he would only want the magic to continue. He wanted great plays to be made, no matter who made them. Lightning bolts of fire ran up and down his spine. Here is his quote: "On those five or ten occasions when the game ended at that special level, I literally did not care who had won. If we had lost, I'd still be as free and as high as a sky hawk."

I don't think that players who have that kind of love of the game and are paired with others who share that love, develop either self hate or animosity toward their winning opponent, but feel that they've played a great game.

I mention this because it seems to me that there are so many sports and contests that can be conducted at that level, and that one-up consequence is not necessarily an outcome of such contests. Also without that level of play, don't we miss a major part of ourselves, of our potential, that can only be exercised and experienced when we make a great play, or even when one is made against us.

Also, losing is not always the worst thing that can happen. Gamblers have a saying, that the next best thing to winning is losing. Walter Matthau, the actor and gambler, said that "as tragedy is to comedy, losing is to winning...It's bigger, larger, stronger...therefore more interesting."

Whatcha think, Michael?

Response 23 : 26 Michael Kahn Mar 10, 2008
Richard-As I wrote that piece about rallying instead of competing, I was well aware that one of my readers was a very high-level, very skilled tennis player. I think we may be talking individual difference. I identify with Kip and the "dance." I really don't enjoy putting the point away, though it's been so long since I played that way, I don't really remember. I really do love the dance of the rally, particularly if we're both "hot". Though I never thought of this before in these terms, I think it is clear that you are a good deal more yang and I a good deal more yin. Maybe that's one of the reasons we have had such an amazingly wonderful friendship over these (almost) 40 years.

One interesting addition to all this is that I really loved playing football. It was the game I loved most and now when I watch a game on television I long to be a middle line-backer. I suppose it's relevant that in tennis I'm trying to beat an individual, whereas in football I am focussed on my team and the great pleasures of being a part of that the team. I had the same response to being a member of a bomber crew. When I played football, I suppose I used to feel bad if some running guard knocked me on my butt, but mostly I enjoyed the rough and tumble. It seems there are holes in my yin, aren't there?

I am a terrible chess player. I always assumed it was because I wasn't smart enough. I think i am indeed not smart enough, at least not that kind of smart. And mostly I think that chess is just too much of a transparent one-up, one-down situation for me.

Since I am a depth psychologist, it won't surprise anybody to learn I am now thinking hard about my relationship with my very powerful father.

Response 23 : 27 Kip Winsett Mar 10, 2008
I thought it was interesting that you described your father as powerful and yourself as "yin". Is there a "one-upsmanship" element in your relationship to your father?

Response 23 : 28 Michael Kahn Mar 10, 2008
Oh, Kip, you bet! I felt totally one-down to him, and it was lifelong imprinting. That's why I added that last line to my previous note. He died when I was 13, so I never got a chance to put a little perspective on my relationship with him.

Response 23 : 29 Kip Winsett Mar 11, 2008
For many people losing a father at such a young age is very difficult and can have an unusually strong impact on their development. Was that the case with you? Do you think that the loss and the lack of an opportunity to develop the relationship plays a big role in your attention to one-upsmanship?

Response 23 : 30 Michael Kahn Mar 11, 2008
I certainly do. As look back, it seems to me that he was unusually gentle with my youth and inexperience. As a psychologist I am continually astonished and dismayed by the number of fathers who take advantage of their height, weight, age, and experience advantage to one-up their son. It often seems irresistible ---and wildly irresponsible. I appreciate my father having had the basic kindness not to have played that game. I guess he was powerful enough to be able to hold his own with peers, and thus had no need to pick on children. I think he was also just a very kind man for which I am extremely grateful. But the fact remains that I was one-down to him just because he was powerful and I was a child. I think that all kids are in that spot, and that may be why the one-up game is so deeply engrained and so needs to be worked though.

Cheers,

Michael

Response 23 : 31 Raymond Alden Mar 12, 2008
I agree that all kids are in that spot, Michael. My wife tells me that my eldest son feels one-down to me, and I expect she's right. (As the daughter of a psychiatrist, she is almost always right! <g>)

I didn't have that experience myself, as my father died when I was only three, and my elder brothers were enough older so as to never be competitors. But I have seen it in my kids.

The sports analogies used above bring to mind golf, which is noticeably apart from most sports in that each player is matched against the course and the weather -- except in match play, that is. I expect that is one reason that players in a tournament are so cooperative with each other.

Response 23 : 32 Kip Winsett Mar 12, 2008
My youngest is currently in the 8th grade - junior or middle school. Watching him and his friends it seems to me that this is the primary training ground for one-upsmanship as a social skill.

It started when they were younger as constant arguing and bickering over rules and who did or didn't do something, but seems to have become "socialized" as a constant low level (or even major) way of putting others down to advance oneself in status. I see it as a progression from outright conflict to something more constrained. How does it look to you?

Response 23 : 33 Richard Farson Mar 13, 2008
Having written about the politics of childhood, I'm painfully aware of the way in which adult society treats children. While parents love their children, society certainly treats them badly--perhaps worse than most advanced cultures. By depriving them of their rights to drive, congregate, drink, vote and imposing curfews and other restrictions, we certainly do one up them. We have virtually elminated genius...child prodigies, who used to be more frequent. Think we should make that case, Michael?

Ray, in response to your wife always being right, I'm reminded of a line I heard over the weekend: If a man wandered alone into a forest and there were no women to hear him, would he still be wrong?

Response 23 : 34 Michael Kahn Mar 13, 2008
Ray, it never before occurred to me that golf was a much less one-up, one-down game than tennis or chess. I think if I had realized that I would have taken up golf.

Kip, I certainly agree that the major function of grades 6 trough 8 is to train one-up players. One of my nightmares is having to go through those grades again. It occurs to me that the African-American kids play the game in the open and with considerable humor. Perhaps this is the best solution and the best protection from growing up taking the game seriously. I once pondered designing a course for 6th graders on one-upmanship. Stephen Potter's books are exactly that. It turns it into a game and helps one see the costs of taking it seriously. I picture the final exam:

"I got an A in that test and I didn't even study for it."

Choose one of these answers:

1. Lord, Billy, what a burden your intelligence must be for you. Does your neck get tired carrying your head around?

2. Billy, I am impressed with your modesty.

3. I appreciate your willingness to hang out with a dunce like me.

Richard, I have always loved your position on child-liberation. I think it is one of your very best books. I never really thought of it this way before: We institutionalize the one-down position for children, and thus add that humiliation to the inevitable "I am simply smaller and less experienced and have to deal with it." Thus we accentuate the need to grow up vowing to say one-up at all costs.

Response 23 : 35 Richard Farson Mar 13, 2008
Michael, I can see from your test questions how one-upmanship could become a skill. Could avoiding it be regarded as a skill, or does it have to come from some other place...such as genuineness, vulnerability, honesty, etc. When relationships really matter to us we don't want to treat them with skill, do we? We don't want skilled friends, do we?

Response 23 : 36 Michael Kahn Mar 13, 2008
Richard, of course I agree. Perhaps, though, it is valuable to be able to recognize when you are being one-upped and to have the skill to move the interaction from there to a loving place. Of course you and I think the way to get to the loving place is to T-group, i.e, find a gentle and compassionate way to say how the one-up maneuver made you feel. That has the best chance of any I know.

Response 23 : 37 Michael Kahn Mar 13, 2008
Richard-Response 23"36 got away from me before I had finished it. Anyway, if I just correct the spelling of "feel", I guess I got it said.

Cheers.

Response 23 : 38 Richard Farson Mar 13, 2008
Michael, compared to most of us, your typing is excellent. You have yet to witness the comments that really have to be studied to be deciphered. By the way, all of us have the ability to edit our own comments. Just go to the upper right corner of the comment area and click on edit, and that will put you back in the composing window and you can make the changes.

A T-group is something like a community, and our research from the sixties here at WBSI indicates that groups without professional leadership can be almost indistinguishable from leader-led groups. But as a society we are seeing community erode almost everywhere. So there is less and less opportunity to deal with one-upmanship as a community. Shopping centers, discount houses, suburban sprawl, television and video games, excessive parental supervision have all contributed to the lack of community, and consequently the decreasing opportunities for the kind of relationships you have spent your career trying to foster. Have you found yourself thinking about ways of coping with that dilemma?

Incidentally, when we started our online School of Management and Strategic Studies in 1981 we formed small randomly selected groupings of our participants (all of whom were senior executives or other distinguished achievers) into what we called community groups. We staffed them with experienced small group leaders, but one of those groups insisted upon throwing their leader out (a UCLA professor) and continuing on their own, without even our ability to monitor them. They called themselves the N group, and believe it or not, they continue with almost the same membership today, still going strong. That's about 27 years...it must be something of a record, and all done online.

Response 23 : 39 Michael Kahn Mar 14, 2008
Richard- I wrote this before I had read your previous comments. Thank you so much. I will read them and attempt to respond.

Here are the comments I made prior to reading yours

Richard- I've been thinking about you saying, "We don't want skilled friends, do we?" Well, I certainly want to be a skilled friend, so I guess I do want skilled friends.

For many years I have been teaching students what I think of as "straight talk," by which I mean telling the truth with compassion. I have come to think it is indeed a skill that can be (must be?) learned. Over the course of a semester I see my students learning it, getting more and more confident, more and more, if I may so, skillful. I think if you and I didn't believe that loving interaction is a skill that can be (must be?) learned, how do we justify spending our lives running T-groups? Well, maybe you don't any more. I have been doing it three times a year for many years now, and my students (at least some of them!) think they are learning important skills, and I confess i think I am too. I think it is a skill I had to learn and I am still not nearly as good at it as I hope to be.

I certainly agree that the necessary pre-condition is the motivation to be able to communicate lovingly, as lovingly as you feel.

Response 23 : 41 Michael Kahn Mar 14, 2008
Richard, I know we come out of very different traditions. You come from Lewin and Rogers and the responses to the authoritarian personality. You are really a good democratic populist. I don't know how to define my tradition except maybe it is "somebody has got to fly the airplane." I do want to say that I have seen you run groups and I have seen you open up opportunities for members to which they would not have gotten on their own.

Anyway I have to believe I have been doing SOMETHING all these years. It's a matter of dissonance-reduction, I guess. Try to disillusion me gently.

In solidarity, Michael

Response 23 : 42 Richard Farson Mar 14, 2008
I hardly think you are deluding yourself, Michael. I'm interested, I think we're all interested, in better understanding your take on these matters. In my book you are one of the most important psychologists America has ever produced, and we're here to get your viewpoints.

I hope you don't mind my asking how you might see one-upmanship in our relations with Cuba, Iraq and Iran...and in the latter case, what you might think about Admiral Fallon's early retirement, announced yesterday. He was in charge of the entire Middle East military efforts, and had come out strongly against the way in which Bush was dealing with Iran, suggesting that he was trash talking us into WWIII. A nuclear scientist friend of mine sent me a message today indicating he was fearful of a nuclear attack on Iran before Bush leaves office.

Can you make psychological sense of this for us, Michael?

Response 23 : 43 Raymond Alden Mar 15, 2008
Make psychological sense of GWB? Are you serious? <g>

Response 23 : 44 Michael Kahn Mar 15, 2008
Friends-I'll be out of town till 3/19 trying to convince the U.S. government that they'd be really one-up if they took the initiative on lifting the Cuba travel ban.

I'll be back on line by 3/22, I hope.

Cheer,

michael

Response 23 : 45 Richard Farson Mar 22, 2008
Well, here it is, March 22, and I hope you've returned from fixing the mess in Washington, Michael.

Perhaps you'd be willing to tell us what specifically you and your foundation are trying to accomplish with respect to our relationship to Cuba. You indicated that this visit was about the travel ban, but I assume that you want to lift the embargo and accomplish other goals as well. Is that right? What are the chances? Will the election matter? Will it require a Republican (Nixon in China) to accomplish anything?

Response 23 : 46 Michael Kahn Mar 22, 2008
Richard et al- I think Cuba is different from the China Nixon visited in that there is no danger of being called a Commie here the way there was in the 60s. As I'm sure you all know there are two reasons for the U.S.'s nutty policy. One reason is that the Miami crazies have the government buffaloed. At least since Gore, the candidates have been bowing to the Miami-based Cuban right, fearing they will lose the 24 electoral votes of Florida. And of course they lose them anyway . Have we ever before seen such a tiny group control American electoral politics? And of course it's not just he votes. It's also a significant amount of campaign contributions. Lieberman openly admits (and cries while saying it)t hat he puts flowers on MasCanaosa's grave out of of gratitude for the money that helped this slimeball defeat Lowell Wicker, one of Connecticut’s great senators.

I think the one-up issue is important but not as powerful as the roll-over to the Miamians. Castro has outlasted how many American presidents? 7? 8? 9? I've lost count. The American failure to do anything more than bluster makes the poiiticians feel incredibly one-down to Fidel and I suppose his brother for that matter.

It is our opinion -and we have some data- that the embargo and the travel-ban are very much to Castro's advantage. They are perfectly terrible for the Cuban people whom we profess to love so much. It['s not only a nutty policy; it is a terribly cruel one.

My foundation is working on four things: we are trying to round up Congress- people to end the embargo and travel ban ; we are trying to do research on Miami public opinion to see if it is no longer politically costly to support ending the embargo and the travel ban. We are trying to keep the presidential candidates from locking themselves into a stupid position from which they can't escape.

From my perspective by far the most important thing we are dong is to try to help the Cubans protect themselves from the capitalist tidal wave that will follow the lifting of the embargo. We are particularly concerned with helping them protect their environment. We are also trying to send high-level lawyers to prepare the Cuban lawyers to deal with United Fruit, etc. And we are trying to help them keep alive the most precious parts of the revolution. To tell you the truth I feel pretty pessimistic about all of it. And also pretty sad.

Response 23 : 47 Richard Farson Mar 23, 2008
That is a big job, Michael. Do you know how the three presidential candidates stand? As far as I know, all three will keep the embargo and travel ban, but do you have a sense of which one is most likely to shift positions? Our Cuba policy is not the only one that is not discussable among politicians, but it surely is one of the most embarrassingly stupid.

Response 23 : 48 Mary Catherine Bateson Mar 23, 2008
My apologies for entering this conversation so late. This comment will be a scatter of remarks that come from reading through it all at once.

First, however, to address the Cuba issue, I proposed in an ILF blog sometime ago (May 24, 2007) that it would be worth while working to pass a "sunset law on sanctions": a law that all embargos have a term attached to them. This would still allow for a renewal of sanctions or of an embargo but would mean that the case FOR embargo would have to be made anew -- unlike the present situation where it is necessary to argue the case AGAINST the embargo, politically more hazardous (especially in relation to Cuba). Cuba and Iran are the most notable examples. We would not be having our present problems with Iran if such a rule were in place. The "default position" of the US should be that we are willing to trade and talk with any nation -- unless there has been a clear reason for breaking off trade and conversation, and that only for a specified time period.

But I want to add a couple of remarks on one-upmanship. I often use improvisational theater or music that involves multiple "players" as a metaphor for human relations. The first rule of improv is to LISTEN (or more broadly PAY ATTENTION). There is a technique that actors are taught -- explicitly for improvising narrative, implicitly for other kinds of improv -- which is to begin by saying "Yes, and..." so that one is building on what the other said. We so often begin by saying "No, but..."

One of the most useful moves in interaction is to express a willingness to learn from the other person. I can't claim that I always succeed in loving the person I'm talking to, but I can usually remember that there is something to be learned from everyone. Unfortunately in our society, asking for information is regarded as taking the "one down" position (cf. Deborah Tannen's analysis of why male drivers dislike stopping to ask for directions) -- better to take it than to be shoved into it! But there is a way of asking for advice/information that focuses on the reason why there is always something to be learned from the "other" because no two people have the same experience. Thus, as an anthropologist, I could say to MIchael, "In your experience as a psychologist what have you observed about..." I listen intently and give a "yes, and" response: "That's really interesting. I've observed something like that too, especially when..." But it helps to literally say yes, and...

I wanted to give one other example where one-upmanship is a problem, namely language. All too often English speakers are using their native language in interactions while others are speaking in a second, learned language, inevitably putting them at a disadvantage. This is one of the ways in diplomatic relations where we set the context to put the other person/nation "one down." At the very least we should apologize for our failure to meet the other on his or her own ground. When in Rome...

On cooperation. I believe there is research comparing different groups with regard to success in school that shows that Asian immigrants and their children tend to study in groups -- and conspicuously succeed. The same technique works in business. Individualism has its advantages but it can create disadvantage over time.

Response 23 : 49 Richard Farson Mar 23, 2008
Japanese businessmen can only say "Yes" even when their real position is "No". That may be changing as they become more Americanized, but it occurred to me that their habit in this regard may relate to what you are saying, Mary Catherine. But as an anthropologist, you probably have a very different interpretation.

Of course, my mentor, psychologist Carl Rogers, advocated eliminating the judgment/evaluation issue completely in those relationships that are most important to us. As I recall Michael's ground rules in seminars he led, the task of the group was never to dismiss a preferred idea, but to try to build on it to see if it could become strong enough for real consideration.

Evaluative judgment may be useful for management issues (or maybe not), but not for education, building relationships, stimulating creativity nor any of the most important aspects of life. I think Carl would say that if one is successful in convincing the speaker that one understands his or her point, then there would be no need for implied agreement.

Isn't that your position, Michael?

Response 23 : 50 Michael Kahn Mar 23, 2008
Richard, young Japanese women, when asked for a date, do the same thing . It can drive you crazy. (Please note, everybody, my data are almost 40 years old.)

Richard: I don't know where the three candidates stand. Only Chris Dodd has said "Knock off this stupid policy for heavens sake.", and he's no longer a candidate. McCain is clearly the most hopeless. My guess (hope?)is that Obama is more reasonable on this than Clinton. One of my Foundation colleagues is trying hard to show the candidates new polling data that indicate it is no longer Florida suicide to take an anti-embargo or anti-travel-ban position.

Mary Catherine, I'm glad to have you in this one-up conversation. I wonder what we learn from cross-cultural attitudes about this. You may have gathered from the earlier exchanges that I am trying to develop the position that in our culture what does us in is that we are trained to prefer WINNING over LEARNING or LOVING.I guess I could add ENCOURAGING." It looks to me like you and I are in the same place. I must say that pleases me. I really like how you use "That's really interesting." and "Yes, and."

I think "sunset on sanctions" is a truly creative idea. I don't know anything about the Iran history, but I am sure that is is much more politically dangerous to lift the Cuba embargo than it would be to reinstate it after a sunset.. Thanks for that idea.

I think that's right, Richard. I am trying to develop the point of view that "agreement" and "disagreement" are irrelevant concepts and and actually obstructive.

Response 23 : 51 Richard Farson Mar 24, 2008
Michael, how do you see a post embargo, post travel ban scenario working out for Cuba. I know you're concerned about what a US business rush might look like. Can you give us an idea about how that might play out?

Response 23 : 52 Kip Winsett Mar 25, 2008
Michael, it sure looks to me like a great deal of the emphasis on "winning" is largely a result of the fact that unless one wins, one loses. That is, there are an abundance of people who will happily take advantage of any weakness.

In thinking about this the past several days I began to wonder if the "one up" games of junior high aren't in some sense simply a constant probing for weakness answered by an aggressive defensive posture that discourages more significant attacks. Is this possible?

Response 23 : 53 Michael Kahn Mar 25, 2008
Richard, as the bans began to come off of Vietnam, there was a rush to buy all the most American artifacts. It looked to us that as the Vietnamese contemplated their future, they thought they had two choices; Ronald Regan or Joseph Stalin. We set about trying to enlarge their options. We sponsored study tours through the "Asian tigers" and sent American economists to Hanoi as teachers and consultants. After that I lost touch and can't tell you what happened. It seems that Vietnam is prospering. How wide-spread that prosperity is among the various social classes, I don't know. Life being what it is,I fear the worst.

I have no data about the following; I just guess Post-embargo Cuba will experience internal conflict between those who want as much as they can get from the arrival of American business and those who want to preserve some vestige of equal opportunity and the communal spirit of the revolution, My foundation is sponsoring a cadre of progressive American lawyers to help the Cubans protect the workers and the environment and hold their own in corporate negotiations. The lawyers are good and well-motivated. But it is really an uphill battle.

Kip, I think you are quite right. Potter's law of one-upmanship is "If you're not one-up, you're one-down". We have been trying to teach techniques to convert the win-lose to win-win. It's very like Mary Catherine's "yes, and." The way we have tried to do this in college seminars is teach students to accept the challenge of building on the idea just presented. It's not only win-win, but I am likely to learn something new, trying to develop an idea new to me. It is very helpful to abandon the concepts of "agree" and "disagree." All those really mean, is "this is as far as I am currently able to see. It's probably not all there is to see."

Mary Catherine, I never quite asked you: Is the one-up game, culture specific? species-wide? primate-wide? animal wide? protoplasm-wide? I'd be very interested in your view of this.

Response 23 : 54 Raymond Alden Mar 25, 2008
Some random thoughts triggered by the above comments:

1. Some years ago I .overcame my "male reluctance" to ask for directions. The way I do it is to say something like, "Can you help a lost stranger?" The effect, of course, is to put the other person "one up".

2. Japanese businessmen say "Hi" (Yes) to almost everything. My associates and I always took that to mean, "Yes, I understand what you just said." Never, "Yes, I agree with what you just said."

3. The time is ripe, I think, to turn the opinion of Florida-based-Cubans toward building a constructive relationship with Raul and whomever will follow him -- surely relatively soon.

4. On "one-upmanship" generally: I find it advantageous in any exchange to put the other person one up on me as quickly as possible. The result is generally to make the other person feel generous and happy to do for me what I want done.

Response 23 : 55 Raymond Alden Mar 26, 2008
One-upmanship example -- smile kind.

A friend has a son-in-law who is a native of Indonesia, or of some place in that vicinity. Raised a Buddhist. Very skilled at interpersonal relations.

A secretary who works in the same office and does typing for several people had been giving him a really bad time over his numerous spelling errors. She was a bit more serious about it than was warranted.

He prepared a memo addressed to all who work in the office, acknowledging his many errors and asking their patience, concluding with, "Please remember that English is my fifth language."

I'm told it had the intended effect, amusing all but one and quieting that one.

Response 23 : 56 Kip Winsett Mar 27, 2008
Mike, Mary Cat mentioned n acting technique useful in improve, and I noticed in your bio that you were in acting for a time. Do you think that acting is a particularly good vehicle for learning how to cooperate (win-win) with others?

Response 23 : 57 Michael Kahn Mar 27, 2008
Oh, Kip, I wish it were. My experience of the acting world is that it is among the most unpleasant worlds of competitiveness, selfishness, and egocentricness. You can see why that might be: The actor presents him or her self to be looked at, listened to, applauded and admired. Many actors are devastated if someone else in the cast gets a better review. Actors often pay an embarrassing amount of attention to who has the best light or the best stage position. That's where the expression "up-staging' comes from. If I upstage you I force you to turn your back to the audience while talking to me, while I am letting them see my face.

It's particularly sad because Mary Catherine is right, actors (when acting) don't say what they believe. They say what will move the action forward. No one cares what they believe. That's just what we tried to train our seminar students to do. The irony (given many actors' values) is this requires one to move the conversation forward, not show off his precious "belief." When you can get a seminar to play by these values, some wonderful conversations result, and the participants emerge feeling really good, liking each other, valuing the others as colleagues, and having learned something new. It's not so easy to do, but it can be done and is well worth the effort.

Response 23 : 58 Richard Farson Mar 27, 2008
Michael, you and I, and many of our friends, for our entire professional lives, have been arranging the kind of group circumstances you have described. For the most part each effort leads to the group members making positive connections, often dramatically so. Ever since the forties when the group dynamics approach was founded by Kurt Lewin, we have been able to turn groups of strangers into friends, at least temporarily. Often at the end of these group sessions they will fall lovingly into each others arms. You and I have done this with hundreds, probably thousands, of people who by following the simplest ground rules, and sometimes not even that but just expecting the group to be helpful, and literally within minutes can be tearfully sharing with others their deeply personal stories.

Now I think I know some reasons why such group dynamics have not been translated into widespread management processes, but why do you suppose we don't find those designs in more popular usage, especially in the circumstances you are most interested in where there is conflict between groups.

Response 23 : 59 Michael Kahn Mar 29, 2008
Richard- I really REALLY don't know. I would like to ask you the same question. Does it have anything to do with the bad name the 60s have now-- "touchy-feely--UGH!"

Response 23 : 60 Richard Farson Apr 01, 2008
I suppose partly it's because group situations work while they're going on, but not after they're over, when the situation changes. Or maybe they do, and we just haven't done the work yet to find out.

Michael, you have been such a great interviewee. I would like to station you permanently here so we could continue to ask you questions. But when we first invited you, I promised it would only be for a week. We were having such a good time we persuaded you to extend to the end of the month, which unfortunately for us is today. I think it has been not only a fascinating intellectual experience, but a record breaking performance for the ILF. I look forward to our next encounter with you. Meanwhile please accept our deep gratitude.

Response 23 : 61 Kip Winsett Apr 01, 2008
Indeed Michael, this has been an excellent interview and I thank you sincerely for being so generous with your time and for sharing your thoughts with us