tofuwatch.com

Lost in translation, even with English

In the on-again, off-again world of blogging and finding time during the busy holiday season, I’m back.

I’m back now because I have a few extra moments. I’m making the case for clear communication, across all demarcation lines in life and even when we all speak English.

Why?

I recently tried getting more information regarding unemployment benefits and health care insurance.

I’m still collecting unemployment benefits because my full-time job search continues.

The state representatives with whom I talked were friendly and earnest. I am not faulting them.

The only catch is that they were so steeped in the daily routine, jargon and facts of their office that clear answers to my questions never immediately surfaced. I understand the information with which they were dealing – from the state and federal governments – is complex and fluid.

Their answers – which I’m sure made sense to them - led to confusion on my part and more questions.

What I am faulting – and as a former journalist, I believe that we, as humans, should put a high premium on - is an institutional structure in which clear communication is not stressed enough or people believe they are answering a question, when they only touched a fraction of the original query.

Economists would toss out phrases, such as an inefficient use of resources and time.

Ordinary people likely would call it something else.

In the end, it eats up time.

With the state unemployment representatives, I spent 40 minutes in the phone conversation.

I told the first person that some of the answers tripped me up.

For example, I asked a question relating to state benefits. The answer only referred to benefits, which confused me because the federal government is offering, as I understand, layers of benefits to people in states.

Part of the complication was that details have changed since March, when I began filing for unemployment benefits.

So, I was using dated information and the new details I was hearing were complex and linked to certain circumstances.

In the end, a supervisor helped. Instead of looking at what might happen – since it’s unclear – she and I examined what is likely to happen at the very least.

Since the federally-subsidized portion of health insurance for people who lost jobs this year will expire this month for many of the unemployed, myself included, I talked the other day with the administrator for my benefits.

I’ve read that Congress is thinking about extending the subsidy. So, I wanted to know whether I might qualify and if there’s any sense on when the House and Senate would vote, whether it would require a conference committee on the final bill.

One representative for the administrator told me a factual answer: There has been no official word about any extension.

I then began thinking about searching for another health insurance provider.

I called a second time and a different representative for the same administrator said details were in flux. He put me on hold and actually checked to get more details, which hinted that progress might be in the works.

I appreciate that he did this.

But that question used by The Clash in their famous song did surface, in the context of health insurance provider: Should I stay? Or should I go?

I called the office of U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert, who represents me in the House, and left a message for more information with one of his assistants. I’m still waiting for a returned call.

By the way, this is the second time that an aide from his office has failed to return a call from me, a constituent.

(UPDATE: On Thursday morning, I talked by telephone with two aides who work for Reichert. The first one, who deals with communications, said she spotted this blog post and called to get more information. The second assistant, the one I left a message for earlier this week, called later and told me that the House approved a subsidy extension. The language has gone to the Senate. If approved, it looks like the health care subsidy extension would be extended to the end of February. I appreciate that the aides called, and similar to others in the country, I’ll wait for the final outcome. The second aide said he has had a busy week.) 

I called the office of U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell, and one of her assistants – the one who answered the call – was kind enough to shed some light on the issue.

He said that, yes, many leaders in Washington, D.C. support an extension. But it was difficult to say when a vote might occur.

I asked whether Congress plans to work through the holidays and he said, yes, it was possible. So, an extension might come through in the remaining days of 2009.

If these were minor points, I wouldn’t make a note of them.

But health and unemployment benefits are certainly front and center in The Great Recession, which like everyone else in the country I hope is ending.

Just trying to get a sense of what might happen in the coming months by calling these representatives took up at least another hour or so.

My sense is that I’m not alone in this time-consuming exercise.

If an economist or researcher has actually calculated how much time has been spent on unclear or confusing conversations during this economic downturn, please let me know.

I wouldn’t be surprised if a researcher comes up with the analysis that unclear conversations are an unintended consequence of The Great Recession, and yes, another compounding drag on it.

Recently, I had a conversation with someone in which we talked about the goal of efficiency in life.

His answer: Yes, but humans are involved.

I can see why the technology leaders at Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and other companies are always trying to make things easier.

Clear answers should not just come from an official spokesperson, a journalist or a senior manager.

Yes, when I’ve visited China, I talked with some people who don’t subscribe to the Western notion of direct, linear communication.

I’ve learned to listen to answers or references to a poem or four-character saying to figure out the meaning of what was said.

Sometimes, that might take a day or two to figure out.

My expectations, I suppose, are different in the West.

In the United States, I’m often fascinated when I speak with mortgage brokers or bank representatives who deal with mortgages.

Sometimes, their answers require careful contemplation because they work with numbers, formulas and terminology so closely each day that it’s easy to stay in that mindset when speaking to an outsider.

One observation I noticed, especially when I worked as a journalist, is that it’s easy to lapse into tossing out the words “they” or “we” – on first reference in conversations with people you’ve just met.

It’s easy to say: “They said they would do that and they never did!”

Who are they? You have to ask.

And in my entire career as a journalist, the one person who surprised me with an answer was the Dalai Lama.

He was visiting Seattle and I had the opportunity to attend a press conference with Western reporters.

I essentially asked him: Why do you think the Chinese government would do anything that you want them to do?

His answer jumped back at least 50 years, giving the assembled journalists before him the key characteristics of China and its leaders during different periods.

He was taking up so much time that even his media handler reminded him that he had other meetings on his schedule. He acknowledged that and said he could spend some extra time on other questions.

But his conclusion actually was clear, nuanced and memorable.

It was: People have the ability to change. 

That was impressive – and English, obviously, is not his primary language.

He answered the question that was asked.