1) A tall, muscular and fully armed officer in riot gear.
2) A short, absent-minded looking officer in a disheveled raincoat who is unarmed but carries an unlit cigar.
I don't know about you, but the image of a rumpled police officer will always remind me of the lovable Lt. Columbo in the 1970s television series "Columbo." If I had to rank my favorite television shows of all time, there's no question that this program would make it to my top five. Weren’t you also enchanted by the unassuming, shabbily dressed, harmless looking working-class Italian-American detective played beautifully by the late Peter Falk? When he did speak, he was either rambling about inconsequential things such as his wife or relatives or he was asking endless question after question out of an apparent confusion or lack of understanding. But in the end, Columbo always outsmarted the killer and solved the crime. As one commentator noted, "although Columbo always appeared to be two steps behind the murderer, in reality he was two steps ahead."
Speaking as a philosopher of sorts - after all, I do have a Ph.D. - I can say that Columbo is a modern-day Socrates. I don't remember from Plato's dialogues if Socrates wore a rumpled toga, but I do know that he was able to uncover contradictions in the arguments of his opponents by acting as a wise fool. That is to say, instead of being confrontational, he was modest and self deprecating; he merely kept asking questions thereby exposing fallacies in the other people's thinking. Yes, we certainly owe a debt to the ancient Greek geeks for giving us such dialectical tools, although nowadays the Greeks seem to owe debts to nearly everyone else!
Let's look more closely at how Columbo operated and how he was always able to build an airtight case against suspects who, invariably, came from upper crust society. These suspects, usually men, were sophisticated but rude and arrogant people who had fancy homes, yachts, and art collections; because of the way Columbo shambled on the scene, they underestimated his ability, put him down, and treated him dismissively.
Columbo never got defensive or angry with these people. He patiently and gracefully ignored their insolence, and he carried out his investigations with modesty, deference, and politeness. He just seemed to be nothing more than a harmless fellow who slipped in while the front door was open simply because he was very interested to hear what people have to say about the situation. He would often remark how impressed he was by their buildings and possessions. His casual banter, complementary tone, and nonthreatening manner made his adversaries think he was incompetent; so they relaxed and before long were happily engaged in distracting conversation with the detective. Little did they know that Columbo had just waged the first of his three pronged strategy against them, namely, Get Them Talking.
As the suspects loosened their tongues, Columbo would listen intently and would always seem dumbfounded or uncertain; so he would ask more questions, scratching his head and offering the people a chance to help him understand things. The suspects were not resistant because there was nothing to resist as Columbo hoodwinked them into revealing more key facts surrounding the murder.
This would set the stage for Columbo's second strategy, namely, Slip in the Real Question. He would always do this from a self discounting posture, seeking the advice and assistance of his adversaries: "you know, there's something that's been bugging me… I couldn't get to sleep thinking about this… There's something you could help me with." Columbo would accept whatever they said without challenging their stories, often remarking on their keen insight and intelligence. Occasionally he would phrase a question indirectly to get useful clues. For example, if Columbo wanted to know whether a person drove a red car, he might pick up something red and talk about a car he used to have that was the same shade of red. Before long, the perpetrator might innocently describe the make and model of his red car and even where he bought it without realizing he was playing into Columbo's hands.
If that weren't enough, the detective had one more weapon in his arsenal, namely, the False Exit or One Last Thing statement. After each interview, Columbo would thank the suspect profusely, move toward the door, stop, turn around with one hand cupped over his eyebrow and ask or say something that would leave the person aghast. This might be how the show would end, not with a fight or car chase but with Columbo dropping a big gotcha. Case solved. Checkmate.
As one critic noted, what Columbo basically did was surround his opponents with mirrors that allowed them to discover their failures on their own. The more they did and said, the more they spun a spider's web around themselves, trapping themselves in lies or inconsistencies. That is what led to their downfall.
Just to set the record straight: Don’t come to the conclusion that I am against police officers who are fully armed and take a no nonsense stance against suspects. Nothing could be further from the truth. Particularly when it comes either to preventing or dealing with acts of violence, I want a well-equipped, ready for action Police Department on the scene, riot gear and all.
Now I'm also not in the business of solving crimes, and luckily most of the problems in my office do not involve violence. And yet from the way that some clients go at each other with heavy verbal artillery, you would think that some major, savage crime had been perpetrated.
Let me give you an example of what I mean. A couple comes to see me and they are both angry because of something one person did or didn't do. It could be forgetting to take out the garbage, leaving the toilet seat up, complaining of a headache, spending over budget - you name it. These are not life-and-death situations, but you would think from the reaction of the couple that World War III had already broken out. One or both of the partners may be using such communication "weapons" as attacking their partner's character or worthiness as a person; attacking their partner's family of origin; bringing up irrelevant or past issues, usually in as much negative detail as possible; or giving ultimatums or threatening divorce. Arguments over little things can get so bad that one partner may stonewall or refuse to communicate at all, showing total contempt for the other person.
It is in such situations that I am starting to invoke the unflappable Lieutenant and remind the gruesome twosome to "be cool like Columbo." I do this by even playing the role of a wise fool myself, asking the parties to help me analyze the communication traits that helped the Lieutenant nail down his cases.
To begin, Colombo is unfailingly polite even to the point of being obsequious. Regardless of whether he is talking to someone he knows, to a murderer or to a victim, he is always respectful and shows goodwill. He's clearly not looking for a fight; he doesn’t carry a gun and never uses physical force. His only tools are modesty, logic and observation.
Second, he is entirely unbiased and open to any and all solutions. Each crime scene comes as a complete surprise to him. He is genuinely confounded and always seeks the advice of interested parties. He is merely trying to get to the bottom of "what is" and "what shouldn't be."
Third, he never stops asking questions and listening very carefully until he has everything sorted cleanly in his head. Until the denouement, Columbo never really tries to lecture, browbeat or tell anyone anything. All he ever does is relentlessly ask questions. And he asks questions from a position of self-discounting, giving people the benefit of the doubt, always offering other people an opportunity to be helpful to the confused detective. As one commentator noted, "Columbo's method illustrates the principle that people hate to be sold, but they love to buy." Columbo essentially allows other people to convince themselves of things. And most important, in the end he is always humbled by the reality he has been able to reconstruct. He never gloats or gets cocky.
What can people learn from the Columbo method? In an argument with difficult people, the more of a know-it-all you become, the more you give the other persons something definitive to resist against. This then leads to more pointless arguments and less psychological freedom to explore possibilities on their own. Thus, being too knowledgeable about obvious solutions may actually create resistance. A sure sign that you have become too much of an expert is getting, "Yes, but ..." answers.
The way out of this situation is, ironically, to reverse the paradox. The more obvious possible solutions become, the more naïve, skeptical and uncertain your attitude toward these solutions should be. The principle at work here is that your spouse or child or enemy cannot be resistant if there is nothing to resist. So if you appear to not understand the basic components surrounding the situation and just ask questions, the other person will be forced to clarify his or her actions.
I wondered if other therapists or counselors have thought of using the Socratic or Columbo method. I learned that the radio talk show psychologist Dr. Joy Browne advises people to be cheerful and stupid when someone provokes them. Adopting this strategy, Browne explains, means acting as if what you heard is sweet music to your ears; rather than get angry or defensive or look for a fight, you're actually grateful for the opportunity to be with this person at this time. Being Colombo-like, or cheerful and stupid, as Browne calls it, brings lightness to the discussion and allows you to ask questions without being accusatory.
Thank you for patiently reading what I’ve written. Oh, just one more thing: Are you interesting in freeing yourself from anger and other relationship blocking emotions? Are you willing to open your mind to new points of view? Do you want to see less confrontation and more resolution in your life?
In short, what's stopping you from acting more cool like Columbo?
No comments:
Post a Comment