Why successful people talk to themselves

I want to talk about the importance of self-communication. There are a lot of buzzwords surrounding the skill of communication. It’s something that we all promote that we have when we apply for a new job or attempt to make new friends. It’s a skill that we could not survive in this universe without. Communication is as essential as breathing, but what is often forgotten about is self-communication.

It sounds complex but the reality is simple

To some extent, self-communication is talking to yourself as if you were another person. It is strange to think about, as society often rejects the notion of talking to yourself as something that mentally unwell people do. But in truth self-communication is the process of the subconscious mind talking to the conscious mind.

I want to bring this to your attention, as a young lawyer, because I think it’s so important to understand yourself. A lot of lawyers work late hours, deal with traumatic or confronting situations and find themselves walking the line between morality and the law. These compromising situations are quickly repressed and ignored in the mind, leading to later issues.

Suppressing the complicated feelings that arise from facing such issues is unhealthy and such repression can lead to ignoring your subconscious thoughts. This is where I will raise the concept of self-communication.

What I mean by this term, is to talk to yourself as if you were talking to another person. For example, if you find yourself not focusing on a task that you know must be done, rather than getting angry you would initiate the self talk.

The conversation would begin with an investigation into why you were not focusing. Are you craving nutrients, sleep, comfort, warmth or are you in pain? These five things may appear obvious, but many people who are under stress or skilled at ignoring their body’s cues can often miss these essential human needs.

Skipping a meal can be very bad for
your focus - and your stomach!

It’s not uncommon for me to lose focus only to realize I forgot a meal time or have goosebumps. This most commonly happens during the period before exams when there is lots of work to be done and little time to do it. Forcing yourself to ask the question may seem childish or irrelevant, but it is important to draw your attention to these five pillars.

It refers back to Maslow's hierarchy of needs. For those who aren’t aware, Maslow is a philosopher who created a theory that humans cannot function unless they have certain requirements met first. The lowest tiers include basic necessities such as shelter, safety, food, sleep, and comfort. They are not privileges to be awarded once your work is done.

A stern reminder to all students and professionals, your job will never be complete. The longer that you withhold things from yourself that are required for your body and mind to function properly the worse your attention and focus will become. Often your mental health will suffer before your physical, and that is why critical indicators such as lack of interest or regression to unhealthy habits, like overeating, hair pulling or overwhelming negative thoughts must be paid attention to.

Negative self-talk is the most harmful consequence of failing to build your skill of self-communication. Those people who cannot understand their subconscious needs often find themselves lost in a mixture of confusion, negative habits, and low self-esteem. It is not an insignificant correlation that lack of self-communication results in poor habits and frustration.

If you do have low self-communication and you’re struggling to focus, I’d like to extend a challenge to you. In fact, even if you’re not facing an issue at work, but struggling to come to terms with a complex event in your life I’d like you to attempt my challenge.

Maybe treat yourself to a hot drink after
writing this letter, you deserve it!

My challenge is to write yourself a letter. Please don’t type it, use a physical piece of paper and pen.

The letter must have four components

a)    Tell yourself what’s going wrong

b)    Tell yourself why you have to do this task

c)    Explain to yourself what’s been happening in your day, week and month

d)    Answer the question; what would I rather be doing?

If, at any point during your letter you feel that you’re leaving the question or statement that I’ve asked you to write about don’t stop yourself. Often putting pen to paper is a calming physical motion that encourages you to feel safe due to the repetition of the movement. This calm can help you to feel safe and for any overriding emotional issues that you may not have dealt with to come to the surface. This is why I encourage you not to stop yourself from going on a tangent and writing about anything that your brain takes an interest in.

Sometimes it may be that you have watched or read something that was emotionally disturbing. I have been impacted by news articles or legal cases that were morally challenging, emotionally disturbing or similar to something that I have experienced in my own life. However as we all lead busy lives, it's hard to bring that disturbance to the surface, leaving it to fester and destroy your work ethic or mental clarity.

I hope the letter that you write to yourself becomes a useful tool that you re-use to develop stronger self-communication skills. Sometimes initially writing the letter won’t bring you an immediate understanding of what is going on. Don’t assume that this means nothing is wrong. Our bodies and minds are more intelligent than we give them credit for and often they tell us more than we know. If it so happens that you read your letter back after writing it and actually believe that there is nothing behind it, that is okay, but if there is something unusual about your behavior I’d recommend leaving it for an hour or so.

You can do it!

After the time, away from your letter re-read it and consider any reoccurring themes. Sometimes you may realize that there was an unusual focus on losing an item, having a bad day or wanting something. These simple circumstances can indicate many different things, usually though they will reflect back on Maslow's hierarchy of needs and suggest that you are missing one of the lower tier requirements. Missing one of these requirements does prevent you from focusing your brain and having a productive work session.



Good luck on building your self-communication skills and I hope you will all promote this challenge to your friends and please tag me on #theunderagelawyer if you found my task helpful.

No Way Bob Day!

[[TRANSCRIPT]]

 Bob Day’s barrister, Peter King, received a warning from Chief Justice French on the third of may against making speeches with politically charged references in front of the high court. He was responsible for presenting, the cross-bencher, Bob Day’s constitutional challenge about electoral change for the upcoming election process to the High Court.

Mr. King is helping Senator Day launch a constitutional case against the Australian Parliament contesting the electoral reforms designed to prevent independents running for a position in the Senate who don’t represent the Australian general public from receiving a seat. Day complains that the new system would unfairly skew the thousands of votes for minor parties as the votes would quickly be thrown away under the new regime. His fears are that it would only grow Australia’s two-party government issues.

Policy discussions - best reserved
for university lecture halls?

King’s scolding arose when he compared the laws, as equal to dissuading signs out the front of polling places. Chief Justice French rose to action warning King to “go to the nitty gritty rather than have speeches that are best made outside of this place.”

 Legal challenges are very serious and formal affairs. In the entirety of Australia’s history, there have been less than one hundred constitutional challenges. Since the high court opened in 1903, the number of cases the court has seen are incredibly small averaging sixty a year since commencement. Again, the number of constitutional challenges are even lower, meaning they are marked down in Australia’s history for special consideration. The minuscule amount of challenges only leaves more room for humiliation as it is certain that Mr. King’s scolding in front of the high court won’t be quickly forgotten.

The policy reform, which is the subject of the legal challenge, is trying to prevent small senators from creating preference deals with other parties to win the seat in Parliament through the preferential voting system. This voting system works so that political groups can show voters how to choose senators that best support this policy in descending order. The plan was put forward after it was debated in Parliament for forty hours, revealing just how contentious this decision is.

The challenge in the high court has prevented the South Australian electoral officer and federal government from issuing the next round of ballot papers needed for the Senate election, which was scheduled to be held on July 2.

In detail, the new policy intends to eradicate the process requiring below the line voters to place their preference for each listed and instead choose their top twelve favorites for the seat. Party logos would also be included in the paper simplifying the process for less politicized individuals. It was seen in a previous election that taglines printed on group voting papers can be very misleading, this will be eradicated by printing logos onto the ballot paper.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has argued that the new legislation was good for democracy as it will encourage voters to vote for at least six senators above the line individually. But if their preferred candidates are unsuccessful then their votes will be entirely unsuccessful.

If anything the new policy makes
brilliant brunch conversation!

As beneficial as the changes may appear senators are warning that these changes violate the principle of representative government. Day body proclaims that voter’s rights were taken away and today no one is a step closer to restoring those rights. This bold claim adds a frightening spin to the turn of events but in reality, Commonwealth solicitor-general Justin Gleeson has criticized the senator for speaking out and dismissed his arguments as having a considerable weakness.

Gleeson has pointed out that if Day’s case is accepted that it would invalidate all voting since 1984. Following that train of logic then Australia would not have had voted in a valid Senate since the last election before 1984. This would put Australia’s legal and political system in serious jeopardy as it would invalidate all legislation.

According to the Constitution, no law can be passed except on agreement by both houses – therefore is the Senate is eradicated so is all of the laws that have been passed in the last thirty years!

Additionally, the case outlines that the policy interferes with section seven of the Australian constitution that claims senators shall be composed of senators for each state chosen directly by the people of the state and that this means that every person’s vote must directly go towards selecting one candidate.

Constitutional law experts from the University of New South Wales have applied legal reasoning and have clarified that governments are allowed to use a range of electoral systems to satisfy direct election. Day’s loss is that the constitution is ambiguous about by what means the voting has to be direct. As a consequence, he cannot claim that one form of voting is more direct than the other as long as they’re both direct.

To be honest, I think we should all
just have a calming cup of tea.

Overall, it seems that King has set himself up for an uphill battle as he failed to present an outline of his argument to the High Court before his presentation.

The courts are still examining the case as we speak, and I look forward to hearing more about this constitutional challenge…as unlikely as Senator Day’s success may be.