A Service of Dr. Val Karan - 558 Anderson Avenue - Cliffside Park, N.J. 07010 - (201) 943-2726 -http;//karan4u-info.blogspot.com/ - Karan4U@aol.

com - Sept. 2015

KARAN 4U NEWSLETTER
FalkTalk: Acting Cool Like Colombo
Do me a favor and imagine the following scenario, and then
prepare to make a choice: You recognize someone walking
towards your house; he is a suave, arrogant, fiendishly evil
individual who is a murder suspect. Maybe he's going to hurt
you? Quickly, you grab the phone and call the local police
station. Within minutes, an officer will arrive. Which one of the
following two law enforcement professionals do you hope will
show up to protect you and deal with the suspected perpetrator?
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.

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

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. Werent 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

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

A Service of Dr. Val Karan - 558 Anderson Avenue - Cliffside Park, N.J. 07010 - (201) 943-2726 - Karan4U@aol.com -

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: Dont 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 doesnt
carry a gun and never uses physical force. His only tools are
modesty, logic and observation.

September 2015

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
nave, 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 Ive 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?