It must be a fad, a trend, or more like a plague really.
In the past few weeks, I have met more than a few people who seem to believe that communication is mainly implicit. I won't get into information theory, promised. Let's just take a simple example: if communication was mainly implicit, they would not be able to read this post, as any education process would be doomed to fail. You do not believe me? Be my guest, try your hand at Rongorongo or Linear A.
The trouble with what is implied is that the beholder has to grasp the implication. And, with a poor signal to noise ratio (oooops, sorry for that;-), it may very well be that your beholder has not perceived enough information to find clearly and precisely what is being implied. Furthermore, you, as the message source, should be aware, and most probably are, that your communication mode is ambiguous at best, because, mainly, what you are relying on is interpretation, and not even your own at that... I may have been drilled too well, but, to me, interpretation needs confirmation.
While the lack of a basic understanding of the importance of subjectivity in the communication process is worrying, it still bothers me less than what leaving the heart of a message unsaid implies. This is of course only my interpretation, but I cannot escape the feeling that leaving things unsaid is close to hypocrisy, especially when leaving things unsaid is done to preserve ones own comfort. Not that it is not important, just that you have to keep your priorities straight: when you communicate, you do it to tell something, be it some witticism, what you want or what you will. So, basically, you are communicating because you have to, following your own motivations. And communication is action. And you do not act to loose or against yourself, do you?
Of course, this does not mean that you may not be subtle or manipulative, matters that I intend to tackle in "The art of being a gracious bastard, or how to make little girls cry without clubbing baby seals" ;-)
In the past few weeks, I have met more than a few people who seem to believe that communication is mainly implicit. I won't get into information theory, promised. Let's just take a simple example: if communication was mainly implicit, they would not be able to read this post, as any education process would be doomed to fail. You do not believe me? Be my guest, try your hand at Rongorongo or Linear A.
The trouble with what is implied is that the beholder has to grasp the implication. And, with a poor signal to noise ratio (oooops, sorry for that;-), it may very well be that your beholder has not perceived enough information to find clearly and precisely what is being implied. Furthermore, you, as the message source, should be aware, and most probably are, that your communication mode is ambiguous at best, because, mainly, what you are relying on is interpretation, and not even your own at that... I may have been drilled too well, but, to me, interpretation needs confirmation.
While the lack of a basic understanding of the importance of subjectivity in the communication process is worrying, it still bothers me less than what leaving the heart of a message unsaid implies. This is of course only my interpretation, but I cannot escape the feeling that leaving things unsaid is close to hypocrisy, especially when leaving things unsaid is done to preserve ones own comfort. Not that it is not important, just that you have to keep your priorities straight: when you communicate, you do it to tell something, be it some witticism, what you want or what you will. So, basically, you are communicating because you have to, following your own motivations. And communication is action. And you do not act to loose or against yourself, do you?
Of course, this does not mean that you may not be subtle or manipulative, matters that I intend to tackle in "The art of being a gracious bastard, or how to make little girls cry without clubbing baby seals" ;-)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment