Commnication

Communication:

A Concise Essay of Personal Observation

Verbal communication face-to-face is the best way to communicate with another. Too many people hide behind e-mail and say things they would never say to your face. If e-mail senders would at least pretend to be speaking face-to-face when they write there would be a lot more civility in communication. People like to hide behind technology as inflammatory e-mails can be dismissed as “mistakes” with “no harm intended”. People are nasty by nature and demote the importance of the written word compared to that, which is spoken. I do not know why this happens other than it takes less chutzpah to write that someone should go fuck themselves instead of saying to their face “Go fuck yourself.”

Face-to-face communication is best because we communicate by means other than verbalizations. Body language, tone, volume, and facial expressions add much to the information exchange. Specific word choices become less important because their value is subsidized with nonverbal cues. We use emoticons in e-mails to synthesize the missing visual cues we would employ in face-to-face communication. They work rather poorly because they lack the depth of meaning that facial expressions, tone, and body language provides.

There are two participants in face-to-face communications. The first participant is the transmitter. This is the person, in whose head some thought exists, that must be faithfully replicated inside another’s head. The person in whose head the thought is to be recreated, is the receiver. The process of face-to-face communication goes through these four steps:

1. The transmitter encodes the thought using words, gestures, or anything else handy

2. Encoded thought is sent using speech, gestures, or whatever was previously chosen

3. The receiver hears the words and decodes the meaning

4. The thought is replicated in the head of the receiver after decoding

What I find interesting is the transmitter is solely responsible for the whole process. Only the transmitter knows in advance which thought is to be replicated in the head of the receiver. The receiver must decode what is sent, but unlike a computer, employs a proprietary decoding protocol. It is incumbent on the transmitter to select a compatible encoding scheme for the receiver to faithfully replicate the intended thought. Therein lies the problem with basic communication: Transmitters must assume complete responsibility for thought replication but often fail to acknowledge that responsibility. “You misunderstood what I said” is a common allegation. It is more likely the transmitter failed to properly encode the thought using a commonly accepted protocol. How many times have you examined how communication actually happens? Exactly. You take the process for granted and probably are quick to tell someone that they misunderstood when desired thought replication is not attained. Few are quick to blame themselves for shitty encoding. “I am competent but you are not … consequently, this must be your fault.” We acknowledge the value of being “a good listener” but rarely see the value of being “a good encoder”. That surprises me, as the encoding bit is the most critical element of communication.

Good communication is an art that can be learned to some degree. I communicate better than I used to but I lack the skill to be very good at it. I am quite jealous of anyone whose is a talented encoder. Tact is often used in communication. Tact is useful to soften the blow of harsh words or thoughts but is deficient in that the original thought is modified when phrased tactfully. Still, there is an expectation of tact where diplomacy is needed.

I take too long to answer questions put to me that require more than a yes/no response. I am prone to responding with more syllables that wanted. My slow response time and wordiness infuriates transmitters. I assume that if a question is posed, my response should be concise but complete. Despite the compute capacity of the human mind, I am often unable to properly respond in the allotted timeframe. In communication, you choose the encoding attributes of expedience, thoroughness, and quality. The bitch is, you can only choose two. If I encode with expedience and quality, the breadth of what I say will necessarily be narrow. If you decode using an attribute I did not use to encode, we will never be on the same page.

A “good” speaker (encoder) is one that can quickly identify and encode thought that resonates with the largest number of people. It is also important to be convincingly sincere in what is said. Politicians need to be good at sounding sincere and choosing words that resonate with the masses. It is less important to be truthful in what is said, than to be sincere. We all value truth and despise a liar. When push comes to shove however, we’ll pick a liar over a truthful person if the encoding employs superior nonverbal cues and sincerity seems to be present. The idea that thought matters most, is arcane. People like having “smoke blown up their skirt” when reality is much more grave.

Despite careful encoding and proper use of visual cues, receivers insist on “reading between the lines”. Tactful communication, as previously noted, changes the original thought. “Reading between the lines” is a receiver’s attempt to refine the communicated thought and synthesize the original, sans “tact-encoding”. This, being an open-loop process, is fraught with error. We persist in “reading between the lines” as a consequence of having learned that people are very often, not truthful in what they say. Whether the untruth results from bias, exaggeration, failure to disclose important facts, or falsehoods, the result is the same: the receiver decodes a thought that is untrue but is convinced of its truth or accuracy. An experienced liar chooses their words carefully. A truthful person also chooses their words carefully to not be confused with a liar. Human nature (common decoding processes) being what they are, will often find the liar more believable than the truth teller. The masterful liar has refined the marriage of word choice with body language and visual cues, to be more convincing. Before we humans developed a spoken language, body language and visual cues were our only methods of communication. This perception became very acute out of necessity. That is why we trust such cues even more than the spoken word.

Communication, a substantially open-loop process, is rather inaccurate in its ability to faithfully replicate thought. There are those people who use the imprecise nature of communication to their advantage, at the expense of others. Although Latin is a dead language, most English-speaking people understand the Latin declaration: caveat emptor (let the buyer beware).

Lawyers are by necessity wordsmiths. The goal is to phrase limitations of specific behaviors in unambiguous terms. Where ambiguity remains, a loophole is born. This is a consequence of intentional thought (I can use that to my advantage later) or unintentional wording (aw shit, I didn’t catch that). Lawyers are probably the best linguists as dispensing words is their vocation. The “fine print” crafted by lawyers and affixed to virtually every product or service, is there to preclude the award of monetary damages sought by buyers of those goods and services that are dissatisfied with their purchase. Sadly, American society no longer places any faith in common sense. Common sense is replaced with legalese and weasel words. It turns out that common sense is not so common.

The United States is now swimming in a population that lacks a common language for communication. The need for a common spoken and written language is obvious … or so I thought. Those of us that mourn for a common language are often labeled intolerant, racist, or we "fail to embrace diversity". With communication being so imprecise even when we think we have a good understanding of a common language, the problems created by multiple languages should be obvious. The problems are not obvious as they are ignored, downplayed, or morphed into something that makes nice sound-bites, but otherwise have no value. Any job that requires written or verbal communication with the public-at-large, is complicated by a multiplicity of languages. An emergency medical technician tries to assess a patient problem as the patient's very life might depend on expedient communication. If there is not a common language, the result can be catastrophic. The result can be a lawsuit! (Hey, it is the American way. Dead is okay but a lawsuit is really bad news.) Shall we require taxpayers to fund the printing of all written driver exams in multiple languages when all regulatory signs are only printed in English? The answer is “yes”. In California, they offer the written driving exam in twenty-six different languages. Gee, California is having funding problems … I wonder why. Does nobody see the folly of this? I guess I must be intolerant, racist, and unable to embrace diversity. Yeah, whatever.

The lack of a common language also causes discrimination. I was rejected for a police radio-dispatcher job because I did not speak Mexican Spanish. This rejection, was despite the fact that I hold an operator license issued by the Federal Communications Commission. Police radio dispatches are required to be made in English, so what was the problem? Other duties included directing walk-ins to various village departments and a number of these walk-ins do not speak English. My inability to speak a non-native language was grounds for keeping me jobless despite over-the-top credentials. Mexican President Vicente Fox has said that Mexicans do the jobs Americans will not do. My rejection for employment is an example of my being barred from doing a job because I am not Mexican. With such life experiences do you really expect me to “embrace diversity”?

The lack of a common language leads to a serious lack of understanding and distrust. If cultures are to peacefully coexist they must at the very least, understand each other on some basic level. I do not understand for example, why our Indian-born neighbors insist on drying their clothes by draping them over landscaped bushes in their front yard. I live in a neighborhood where houses cost $300,000 to $450,000. This seems very odd to me. If I could speak the native language of that household I could possibly understand what I consider questionable behavior. I could also point out that they are adjacent to a four-lane road and their clean clothes are getting soiled by rush-hour traffic exhaust. But we cannot communicate as I do not speak Hindi any better than I speak Mexican Spanish. Instead of all people being assimilated into a coherent society speaking with a single political voice, we create islands of culture diversity lacking meaningful contact with others only fifty feet distant. That is very sad. Obviously, my racist attitude prevents communication that would otherwise flow with the efficiency of a waterfall. Yeah, sure.

-End-