Quote:
Originally Posted by JimOfferman  Your analogy is flawed. Modems and telephones can exchange information if both ends understand the same protocol, just as humans can exchange information if they speak the same language. Speaking the same language is a shared responsibility. I learned English so I could talk to people who do not speak Dutch.
However, we were talking about human communication, which is much more complicated than the exchange of bitstreams that our electronic devices are capable of. To a machine "see you later" is always the same information, but in human exchange it can have many meanings, depending on how it is delivered. I can say "see you later" to my girlfriend in a way that implies we'll have a fun night ahead of us or I can give it a cold and bitter "I really hope we never cross paths again" undertone when delivering it to someone who ruffled my feathers in the wrong way.
So, there is the information ("see you later") and there is the intended message ("to make love tonight" or "stay out of my life!"). It is, in my opinion, the responsibility of the sender to ensure that the intended message comes across with the information. |
I agree that a sender has to verify the message has been understood if you want to communicate. Most of the time that verification is easy but under stress people have to make extra sure. Like being on noisey radios, people repeat back what they heard. Or like technology communication with checksums or error retransmits. But that's just to make sure the message content made it, then there's the level of what it means that often needs clarifying for real communication. It's reflective listening that works - not just parrot back the words but say how you understood the message back.
Woops - this tread has wandered.