| « Information overload is real | Logical exercise - find out why you live » |
Synchronized loss of synchronization
I've been making myself more and more aware of how information travels and how it transforms beyond recognition from what is being meant by the communicator and what is understood by the receiver. It is truly amazing.
Yes, but I wouldn't call it amazing, I would call it one of mankind's most serious problems. Just think about it, from all the problems we have, not all are actually problems caused by someone's bad will, jealousy, aggression, greed or spite; a great deal of them are communication issues.
Follow up:
You'll never be able to absorb a message 100% the way the author intended, which is why comprehension checks are important. My approach is called "it is not only the sender's fault". If you feel that you are getting an incomplete picture, re-send the message back, formulating it in a different way and see how the original sender reacts. Quite often a simple test makes it clear that there was a "synchronized loss of synchronization" (this is how I call this class of problems).
One should never, under any circumstances assume that the burden is on the sender. Sure, you can do that, but you will end up causing problems to yourself. In the long run, what matters is not the fact that "it was the sender's fault", but the fact that you are at loss because of communication problems.
This is why we have charts, colours, formulas, diagrams, schmiagrams, gestures, and so on. Different people like their information different, some want it cold like their coffee, others want it hot like the penguin's egg. In the real world this means that some like visual, others like sound, others want kinesthetic.
Only those who are aware of these different channels are able to receive messages that came by a channel different from the channel they prefer.
Now, factor in one's lack of will to listen, lack of time to do so, poor vocabulary, bad mood... I am surprised this world still works and we, as a species, have been able to survive for so long.
A good solution is the 'make it public rule'. How it works: before telling someone "you schtupid schmuk! you have no communication skills!", make sure that the public will be on your side. The public knows everything ;-)
3 comments
+1 
i did not mean ' amazing' to signify that it was fantastic that ppl do this. in fact, i do classify it as a huge drawback and the worst thing of all is this will always be like this, because there are always people whose mind is set on 'transmit' rather than 'receive', not to mention the missunderstandings caused by different backgrounds, different languages and the education the parties involved have received.I do disagree, though, that 'the public''s oinion is a factor to be considered. This implies 'taking someone into consideration' but surely, those who were your target audience will understand what you mean either way, or if interested - will clarify with you. This way, there will be a natural selection of those who are and are not the 'right audience' for the message you try to convey. What I'm trying to say public opinion should not be a criterium in deciding what YOU as an individual have to say.
That's exactly how I interpreted your 'amazing' :-)In the 'public opinion' case, I do not mean that you should actually care about what the public says. You should read the 'make it public' story, it explains that in each case the public is you; it's just that you try to see things from other people's perspectives. In other words, it is just a shortcut, but not a way to encourage people please other people, no matter how stupid other people's point of view is.
I slightly disagree with you on the natural selection bit. Ideally, it is so; but nature selects the candidates based on many other features. At this moment we are outnumbered, and the trends are quite upsetting. "We" do not have many children, while "they" fsck around all day and spread their genes.
Look at society in general, in many countries (ex: Moldova) the so called leaders are not people who got there by being smart and fair, they got there by being good at screwing other people.
They will lose eventually, but there is a chance that "survival" features are currently more important from nature's point of view than "getting the message across" features. Therefore we should not only be good at getting the message across, but also good at defeating assholes and showing them where their place is.
This could be another instance of 'problema intelectualului inadaptat': when everyone around is ugly, they call you a pig.
Comment feed for this post