The law of communication

[Pagliacci]

Alexandraaahs thread about emoticon hell prompted me to post my first thread.

Communication usually fails-except by chance
If we begin a communication with this assumption, the result may then be better than if we start with the opposite assumption, that a communication usually succeeds.There is a wealth of research data showing that the general efficiency of the communication process is very low, often under 5 percent - a figure approaching statistical randomness.

This law of communication has four corollaries

If communication can fail, it will
This corollary means that if you give communication a chance to fail it will fail. If you as a communicator are careless, indifferent, or just plain lazy, you usually fail in communication

If communication cannot fail, it, nevertheless usually does fail
Even with the best of intentions, your communication is bound to fail because nature is against you and will use hidden flaws, deficiencies, misprints, and misunderstandings to defeat you.

If communication seems to succeed in the way it was intended, it must be in a way wich was not intended
If everything seems to go fine, be careful; success may be illusory. Receivers may think they understand your message. In reality, they misunderstanf it or just want to humour you or do not want to admit misunderstanding.

If you are satisfied that your communication is bound to succeed, it is then bound to fail
To be content with your own communication usually mean that you designed the communication process according to your own taste and did not consider the receiver. The message should be designed for the receiver not the sender.

------------------------

That's all of it.

 

[SlowHand89]

Huh?!?

 

[Pagliacci]

Huh?!?

In what context?
-You don't understand the law I posted?

-You don't understand what in Alexandraaahs thread that prompted me to dig this law out?

 

[Nora]

Ooo look!!! Puppies in my yard!!! PUPPIESSSS!

Ok, just kidding (although there really are some puppies playing in my yard.). I read. I comprehended. I liked. It's also especially true of text-based communications, which are just a pain in the ass at the best of times.

 

[bluespoke]

If communication cannot fail, it, nevertheless usually does fail

If punctuation cannot be incorrect it, nevertheless, usually is!

 

[Pagliacci]

Ooo look!!! Puppies in my yard!!! PUPPIESSSS!

Ok, just kidding (although there really are some puppies playing in my yard.). I read. I comprehended. I liked. It's also especially true of text-based communications, which are just a pain in the ass at the best of times.

There are? Lucky you,if only I could keep a dog.
Text based communication is hell.Something that Alexandraaahs thread proves more than well.

 

[Hamletmaschine]

This is all predicated on a quaint notion of communication, the old Shannon-Weaver model, which defines "success" in terms of a "source's" message getting through in an undistorted form to a "receiver."

Go back to opera.

 

[Pagliacci]

Re: Re: The law of communication

If punctuation cannot be incorrect it, nevertheless, usually is!

I'll immediately contact the source of this and make sure they sort out their punctuation.

 

[Pagliacci]

This is all predicated on a quaint notion of communication, the old Shannon-Weaver model, which defines "success" in terms of a "source's" message getting through in an undistorted form to a "receiver."

Go back to opera.

I see you clearly discard this model but I don't see you come up with a "better" one.

Stickt to the sandbox.

 

[Nora]

Go back to opera.

nonononononono! Opera sucks ass! This is wayyyy more interesting!

But you do raise an interesting point about communication on here, Hamletmaschine. I mean, is the point on a board like this one to communicate an idea that should be received by the target effectively or does it matter? I guess it would depend on the thread and the poster's intent and level of "do I care?" If that makes sense.

I know I've had plenty of occassions where I meant something to come across far more friendly than the recipient took it, which necessitated me going back and explaining my intent, which is kinda unwieldy, ya know? Ineffective communication yanks my chain.

There are also plenty of posters (on every board, not just Lit) who type solely to see the pretty words on the screen next to their increased post count. I don't think they worry overly about whether or not their message is appropriately taken, though.

 

[BBD]

Hmm...I guess I'll have to look up that other thread to see what brought this one on.

 

[Hamletmaschine]

I see you clearly discard this model but I don't see you come up with a "better" one.

Stickt to the sandbox.

I don't have to. Others have already done so. Come sit in on one of my Intro to Communication courses sometime, and I'll tell you all about them.

 

[Pagliacci]

I don't have to. Others have already done so. Come sit in on one of my Intro to Communication courses sometime, and I'll tell you all about them.

I didn't mean you personally.
What I did mean that since you refute this model in favor of another it would be interesting to hear of that one.

Even though you teach them you most have a view of how things work because I simply refuse to believe that teachers of any kind are simply mouthpieces for the words of others,they must hold a personal view.Even though they aren't allowed to voice them in class.

 

[Nora]

yes, yes, you both have big dicks and we're all very impressed....now, back on topic?

Hamletmaschine, I never took any communications classes. I'm not familiar with different theories that aren't based on social-psych which deals more with attribution styles than actual models of communication styles.

What are some of the other models that are accepted today? Do they tend to be applicable more to face-to-face communication as opposed to a text based environment?

 

[Hamletmaschine]

Originally posted by Nora


... I mean, is the point on a board like this one to communicate an idea that should be received by the target effectively or does it matter? I guess it would depend on the thread and the poster's intent and level of "do I care?" If that makes sense.

I have no idea what the point on a board like this is. I know a lot of people think that communication is about sending and receiving messages. And if that's what you believe, then Pagliacci is right: you're doomed to fail.

I know I've had plenty of occassions where I meant something to come across far more friendly than the recipient took it, which necessitated me going back and explaining my intent, which is kinda unwieldy, ya know? Ineffective communication yanks my chain.

Why do you feel the need to call this "ineffective"? Communication is unwieldy, messy, etc. So what? Why would we humans keep doing something that ends so often in "failure"? That's stupid. No one is that idiotic.

There are also plenty of posters (on every board, not just Lit) who type solely to see the pretty words on the screen next to their increased post count. I don't think they worry overly about whether or not their message is appropriately taken, though.

More power to 'em. Ain't life grand!

 

[SlowHand89]

In what context?
-You don't understand the law I posted?

-You don't understand what in Alexandraaahs thread that prompted me to dig this law out?

It was a joke. You were trying to communicate something, and I answered ....




I hate explaining jokes, no offence to you though.

 

[Pagliacci]

It was a joke. You were trying to communicate something, and I answered ....




I hate explaining jokes, no offence to you though.

Can I take offense at you pointing out that I'm not good at getting jokes at times??

 

[Hamletmaschine]

I didn't mean you personally.
What I did mean that since you refute this model in favor of another it would be interesting to hear of that one.

Even though you teach them you most have a view of how things work because I simply refuse to believe that teachers of any kind are simply mouthpieces for the words of others,they must hold a personal view.Even though they aren't allowed to voice them in class.

LOL -- I didn't know we weren't supposed to voice our opinions in class. They never tell me anything....

Communication is simply the process of creating shared meanings through symbols. It's always a dialogue, never a monologue (even though only one person may be "speaking"). The fantasy that I somehow have a meaning in my head prior to the moment of communication, and that I only use communication to try to beam my pre-existing meaning into your brain, is just laughable to me. Instead, by trying to find a symbolic form for what I think I mean, you and I work together to give meaning to experience and phenomena. I need you to help me discover, create, what I mean. And meaning is a process, not a product. If we don't find something that suits us on the first try, we keep at it until we do.

 

[Pagliacci]

LOL -- I didn't know we weren't supposed to voice our opinions in class. They never tell me anything....

Communication is simply the process of creating shared meanings through symbols. It's always a dialogue, never a monologue (even though only one person may be "speaking"). The fantasy that I somehow have a meaning in my head prior to the moment of communication, and that I only use communication to try to beam my pre-existing meaning into your brain, is just laughable to me. Instead, by trying to find a symbolic form for what I think I mean, you and I work together to give meaning to experience and phenomena. I need you to help me discover, create, what I mean. And meaning is a process, not a product. If we don't find something that suits us on the first try, we keep at it until we do.

If they don't tell you anything then you got deniability when they come after you for some reason.

Ok,I understand and since that model is more or less diametrically opposite from the one I use there isn't much use in us debating further.I'm sure that your method is equally viable and effective.But I'll stick to mine so far it has served me well.

Though if it should fail me I now,thanks to you,have another that might work.

 

[celiaKitten]

LOL -- I didn't know we weren't supposed to voice our opinions in class. They never tell me anything....

Communication is simply the process of creating shared meanings through symbols. It's always a dialogue, never a monologue (even though only one person may be "speaking"). The fantasy that I somehow have a meaning in my head prior to the moment of communication, and that I only use communication to try to beam my pre-existing meaning into your brain, is just laughable to me. Instead, by trying to find a symbolic form for what I think I mean, you and I work together to give meaning to experience and phenomena. I need you to help me discover, create, what I mean. And meaning is a process, not a product. If we don't find something that suits us on the first try, we keep at it until we do.

I'm so turned on by this...

(Was that effective and meaningful communication? Did I succeed?)

 

[patient1]

Opera sucks ass!

Just because something is an acquired taste doesn't mean it's not a pleasurable pursuit.

 

[Weird Harold]

The fantasy that I somehow have a meaning in my head prior to the moment of communication, and that I only use communication to try to beam my pre-existing meaning into your brain, is just laughable to me.

In a face-to-face setting, you may have a point. However, in the context of written communication, everything starts with a thought the writer wants to share -- "a meaning in my head prior to the moment of communication," if you will. Without that meaning for me to assign symbols to, there is no point in clicking on the post reply button.

Unless or until someone responds in a way that indicates that my words aren't understood, I can only assume that the symbols I assigned to the thought I wanted to express communicated something close to what I intended to those who read my words.

Sometimes communication can be a one-way process, although it is never "one-sided" -- communication doesn't happen until it's "received and understood," however imperfectly it might be understood.

Pagliacci said:
Ok,I understand and since that model is more or less diametrically opposite from the one I use there isn't much use in us debating further.I'm sure that your method is equally viable and effective.But I'll stick to mine so far it has served me well.

I don't think the two models are diametrically opposed. They simply address different parts of the process of communication. Both are valid views of how effective communication works -- especially how it works in different contexts.

Communication with stranges works differently than communication with a partner you know well. Communicating in print is different from communicatiing verbally and there are different contexts of verbal communication -- phone conversations vs face-to-face conversations, for example -- where communication functions differently.

A truly competent communicator would know which model works best for the medium and mode in which he is communicating.

 

[Hamletmaschine]

. . . I'm sure that your method is equally viable and effective.But I'll stick to mine so far it has served me well. . . .

Dreams die hard.

I'm so turned on by this...

Ms. Kitten, please see me after class.

Weird Harold--two things: first, you're projecting your own perceptions of how you communicate in writing onto everyone else. The fact of the matter is that few of us actually write that way. I do not believe that any of us knows exactly what we want to say before we put pen to paper or fingers to the keyboard. From classical rhetorical training to present composition instruction, we see writing presented as a process of invention, not merely a representation of some prior invention (i.e., meaning).

Secondly, we have to reckon with the sociality of language itself. Once you put your "own" meaning--imagining for a moment that such a thing exists--into symbols, it is no longer your own meaning. You do not own the words you use. They belong to other people as well, who have placed limits on what you can make those words say or mean. Consequently, you are always communicating with some notion of answerability--that is, whatever meaning we think we might want to convey is always constrained in advance for us by its being an answer to some prior communication/meaning and in anticipation of its being answered in turn by others.

To put it another way, when you write, you have an image of an addressee, someone who will read and understand and respond to your words. And you are constantly revising your language--and hence your "own" meaning--in order to try to communicate with your addressee. To some extent then, your addressee is a co-author of your "own" meaning. How can that be construed as "one way" communication?

 

[lavender]

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

Ms. Kitten, please see me after class.

Sorry - she has a previous engagement after class; she is scehduled to be pirvately spanked and molested in my office.

I do not believe that any of us knows exactly what we want to say before we put pen to paper or fingers to the keyboard.

[/b]Be careful when using absolutes; those of us that are more literate and practiced in our writing actually engage our brains and think about what we are going to say before we say it. I will agree that most people do not, but some do.

I would point out one more informal law of communication that I run into all the time; if there is any possible way that a person can intentionally miscontrue or twist the meaning of your communication, they will. I engage in informal debates quite a lot, and even though I go far out of my way to make my meaning and intentions clear, there are people who will fake a misunderstanding so they can twist your words to their advantage. To preclude this from succeeding, I usually try very hard to make my meaning clear, and I do not let such attempts go unanswered. This has in a very few circumstances led to someone engaging in such tactics merely to waste my time. At that point I typically point out their tactics publicly and cease communications with them - usually any observers will be able to clearly see what they were doing and it makes my opponent look like a fool. Mission accomplished.