Simanaitis Says
On cars, old, new and future; science & technology; vintage airplanes, computer flight simulation of them; Sherlockiana; our English language; travel; and other stuff
SAY THAT AGAIN PART 2
JASON VANRULER ENCOURAGED ALL THIS with his article Discovering Your Communication Type: The 5 Paths to Deeper Connections and Stronger Relationships. Here in Part 2, his PATHS acronym is expanded (in the quoted passages). My EDITS are left unadorned. All in good communications fun.
“Peacemaker. Strength: Creates peace and eases tension in difficult or trying moments. Opportunity: Can avoid necessary conflict, which delays resolution and repair.”
Alas, the peace pipe might only generate smoke, not any solutions.
A hep alternative. Image from dezeen.com.
“Advocate. Strength: Focused on justice, fairness, and upholding morals; advocates for their beliefs. Opportunity: Can present as intense or overpowering or advocate when it’s not needed.”
A lot would seem to depend upon whose justice, fairness, and morals are being proposed. What to do if these beliefs are antithetical to many of society’s acceptable ones?
Image from The New Yorker.
“Thinker. Strength: Focused on logic, thoughts, facts, and getting things correct. Opportunity: Can miss cues for feelings and appear distant or emotionally unavailable.”
I feel most aligned with these tenets of logic, thoughts, and facts. Does this lack of empathy identify me as a real-life Mr. Spock?
Image from Pdb.
“Harbor. Strength: Creates a safe space for others to go deep and talk about feelings and emotions. Opportunity: May struggle to express their own needs, communicate boundaries, or be the focal point of a conversation.”
To me, this one is akin to the peacemaker: Seemingly, they’re both creating a speaking platform without necessarily doing any worthwhile speaking whilst there.
“Spark. Strength: Brings lots of energy, creativity, and momentum to conversations. Opportunity: Can struggle with consistency and initiating difficult conversations.”
I lean toward this one, just as I like the logic and facts of the thinker. As for consistency, Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” The trick, of course, is separating the foolish from the meaningful.
Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1803–1882, American essayist, lecturer, philosopher, poet, Transcendentalist. Portrait by J.J. Hawes 1880 via Wikipedia.
Not Just Talking, But Listening Too. VanRuler describes, “Healthy communication is as much about listening as it is about talking. Each path speaks a different ‘language,’ and the more fluent you become in other styles, the better you can bridge the gap between you and the people you care about.”
Advice: “Thinkers need time to process. Give them space instead of pressure. Sparks need engagement for connection. Respond to them with energy rather than silence. Peacemakers need and prioritize safety. Approach them with grace, not urgency.”
VanRuler posits, “When you understand your communication type and the communication type of others, you begin to see that most disconnect and conflict stem from differences in approach rather than intentions.”
Well, maybe. I must wonder when the disconnect and conflict are political in nature.
VanRuler continues, “To have deeper, more fulfilling relationships, we must understand our own and one another’s paths. To find out your main communication type, take the assessment.”
Full disclosure: Curious as I am about identifying my communication style, my inherent distrust of phishing precludes my completing the assessment. Had it not required name and email address (these days, salable data), I would have continued.
As it stands, I thank Jason VanRuler (and Nice News) for thoughtful insights. ds
© Dennis Simanaitis, SimanaitisSays.com, 2026
Simanaitis Says 
During my MBA studies (aka Mindless Bloody A*****e more on that later), we had a course on Management Science – individuals in the organization. We worked in groups, and one assignment was to deliberately foment a major conflict within the group and then study the resolution process. Some groups had no trouble getting there, some showing signs even before the assignment, and one remaining seriously permanently dysfunctional after the assignment.
Our group consisted of an Asian male and female, two white females and myself (white). We were not really able to get significant conflict within our group. One of the white women and I would frequently spar over small stuff, but nothing really significant. She or I would say something and the other would usually respond in some fashion. Finally after one class the prof asked the two of us to stay behind and asked us to deliberately change our behaviour in terms of how we responded to each other, or even our contributions to the group meetings. So the next meeting we did as requested, and the rest of the group was totally ill at ease thinking that maybe the two of us had privately had a major argument and weren’t on speaking terms. Very perceptive of the prof and a great learning exercise.
We were also asked to write down our perceptions of the group dynamic and subsequently discuss. My perception was that the main dynamic was male/female perspectives, but the two Chinese felt that it was more white/asian. But overall neither dynamic was significant enough to make the group dysfunctional, and learning of each other’s different perceptions of the dynamic informed our approaches going forward.
As to my definition of MBA, I believe that far too many MBAs fit that definition, especially those who went straight into the program from undergraduate degrees as opposed to the recommended work experience prior to attending (I had been working for 7 years prior to doing the program). Too often people armed with MBAs have done irreparable damage to organizations, using too much book learning and too little real experience. I started my MBA due to a major recession causing many in my field (civil/structural engineering) to be out of work. The c/s department at my former employer dropped from 10 people down to 3, and several firms that I tried to apply for jobs ended up going out of business. While I did get a part time job at seriously diminished pay, I felt that getting further education might help me make a career change (60% of my class was out of work engineers). In the end, while I did get a job after graduating, it was in an organization that was going through an MBA consultant process that was totally dysfunctional. As an engineer with MBA I was hired into the Business Systems Group that interacted between the corporate IT group and end user groups (mine being all the engineering departments). Relations between the engineering departments and BSG was so poor that in one instance when I went to introduce myself to the department manager, he said “please leave and close the door behind you”. I did manage to develop a good relationship with the engineering groups (including that dismissive manager), but never managed to mesh within the BSG, and so did not survive my 6 month probation period. The MBA driven changes only served to worsen that relationship. The company had a practice of rotation all their engineers through all of the engineering departments, and after I left my position was added to that rotation. Several months later I bumped into the individual who followed me, and he couldn’t wait to get out of there. What the MBAs built was a service department that told their customers what they needed, not asked/listen to what they needed to help develop appropriate solutions.
I finally went back into consulting engineering, but didn’t consider my MBA a waste, as it did teach me better understanding of corporate dynamics, and even kept me off the streets while studying during that deep recession.
? Give identifying information ? .
Hard pass =8-( .
-Nate
Make America ………..again?
Looks like brain freeze up.
or
Morons
Are
Governing
America