Communication Between People

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Terumoto

I think it might be something in between... The talker is partly responsible and the listener is partly responsible.

I don't know too much about internet hardware, but consider modems. They have a message they need to send, and it's their responsibility to make sure their message is sent using a protocol that the receiver can understand.

If the message successfully reaches another modem, it can be demodulated and understood. If, because of some sort of mix up, the message happens to get sent to a telephone, the telephone won't be able to understand the original message. It tries to make sense of it, but if someone picks up the telephone and listens, it's just a jumble of odd sounds.

So, in the world, modems are efficient at communicating with modems, telephones are efficient communicating with telephones, radios are efficient at communicating with radio transmitters.

Communication is possible cross platform, you can make phone calls over the internet, access the internet on mobile phones, etc., but it's most efficient between devices of the same type.

Maybe different kinds of people just naturally communicate better, and less effort is required on the part of the communicator to make his or her message understandable. Whether the listener is compatible with the communicator is luck... I don't know though, I'm just thinking out loud.. -_-

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.

First, I want to say that I agree with both of them, but I feel compelled to color this tangential dialogue with some of my own knowledge.

To those of you who like academic/technical papers, see A Mathematical Theory of Communication (don't know how long link will stay up). I won't be discussing this here, except to borrow its fundamentals.

To start, let's agree on a couple terms.

Language, n., a vocabulary (or collection of meaningful combinations of an alphabet) with a grammar (or a set of rules restricting how said vocabulary may be used).

Interestingly, this definition includes bitstreams, cultural dialects, programming languages, and even body language. I'll explain: a bitstream is made out of 1s and 0s. That's the vocabulary. Its grammar is what Jim calls the "information protocol".

So, to review, let me restate Jim's response:

"Human communication is more complex than bitstreams because there is more than text in a statement."

And of course, he is absolutely right. Where I feel he makes a mistake is in his conclusion: saying that it is the responsibility of the sender to ensure that the message comes across properly. Except, again, he's right.

Paradox got your brain yet? Let me link you again, this time to Wikipedia, to the OSI Model. The OSI model is one of the basic pieces of knowledge for people who are advanced Internet geeks. It explains the relationship between electrons and Firefox, and why the electrons can come down a copper wire, by emitting photons through fiber optic, or transmitted through the air.

Don't try too hard to understand it. There are two essential things to know. The first is this: each layer doesn't care how the information got to it, as long as the information works.

Human beings work much the same way. A smile uses a different language than a few words, but they can achieve the same effect. Why? Because we don't care how a message is delivered, just as Firefox doesn't care whether or not the sending server is running on Windows or Linux.

The second thing to learn from the OSI model is this: a failure can happen at any level.

For instance, if your ethernet cable is cut, then no more internet for you. However, what if the problem was on the presentation layer or network layer? Have you ever seen a webpage that just looked really, really weird? Or a file that was "corrupted"? It was probably an issue on one of those layers; your ethernet cable is probably fine.

Take the analogy back to human beings.

My lips, tongue, and vocal chords work just fine. I can say, "See you later," or "Have a good day,". That's fine, and you'd understand it. Similarly, I can say, "Hatta Nen," or "Layene Lan Lawe." Do they mean the same thing? How should you know? (I don't.) If your tongue were cut out, though, you'd have a real problem. How do you deliver your information?

Well, you could use a different physical means: such as your hands. That's the essential understanding of the OSI model.

Back to the analogy.

The purpose of a sender's brain is to take an intention and transform it into electrical signals down our nervous system into our muscles. We move parts of our body to achieve expression.

The purpose of a receiver's brain is to take that expression, transform it back into electrical signals that are reassembled in the brain and matched against memories and patterns to derive an intention.

This process is not at all unlike the purpose of a modem. But it is, as Jim said, much, much more complex. Why?

The reason is that modems are designed by people who have talked to one another, agreed upon a standard, and built everything carefully so that modems are efficient communicators.

Let me repeat that: the purpose of a modem is to efficiently communicate.

Human beings are not efficient communicators. Why should we be? Modems don't learn from each other: they just transform one pattern into another pattern. But human beings do.

We need this difficulty in communication: that's how we learn.

So, now that we understand the frozen-in-time model, let's let the river flow and see where it takes us.

How do you communicate with someone?

Well, let's stick to the analogy. How does the OSI model work? It's fairly straight-forward: starting at the Application layer, you have a piece of data. You walk down the stack, adding some extra information as you go, until you reach the bottom. It transfers, then it goes up the stack, stripping off the extra information until it gets back to the top.

Now, the brain does essentially the same thing. We begin with an intention, like, "I'll see you tonight. I love you. That shirt looks awesome on you, but I can't wait to take it off." Now, we wrap it in cultural connotations, history of interpersonal relationship, symbolism, and language until it gets to our body, whereupon we deliver a squeeze on the shoulder, a lewd glance and a sultry, "See you tonight, lover."

You try that on someone you don't know and you'd probably get slapped.

But wait a second. What's all that stuff I mentioned about culture and relationships and symbolism? Obviously, the important bits.

The key to successfully communicating with someone is to fail to communicate with them. At first. What? Remember: we're talking about time, here.

A failure to communicate is an opportunity for learning. In order to successfully communicate, you have to learn. For instance, squeezing someone's shoulder might not signify affection: it might signify threat. You have to know that. The glance might be misinterpreted as criticism of their taste in fashion. The sultriness might be received as subtle mockery.

What you need to know is, for this individual, which is true? You learn that by developing a personal history, understanding their culture, their background, what's important to them, etc., etc....

In short, all that stuff you learn while spending time together. You have to take advantage of all those moments to learn this stuff, and every time you get a better grasp, you get better at communicating. Every time you make a mistake, you have an opportunity to do better.

And that's why human beings aren't just bitstreams.

Because we learn. And in doing so, change. Constantly.

[JimOfferman]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

In short, all that stuff you learn while spending time together. You have to take advantage of all those moments to learn this stuff, and every time you get a better grasp, you get better at communicating. Every time you make a mistake, you have an opportunity to do better.

Exactly!

I can't quite follow what you meant here:

Where I feel he makes a mistake is in his conclusion: saying that it is the responsibility of the sender to ensure that the message comes across properly. Except, again, he's right.

I'm both mistaken and right? That's, erhm, interesting. I, of course, feel I am not mistaken.

Here's how I see it: For the sake of argument, let's stick to vocal communication only. As my experience with listening grows, it will become easier for other people to communicate with me, because I will be better equiped to understand them. However, when I start talking to someone, I cannot make any assumptions about how experience he (or she) is as a listener. I can't know beforehand if the other person will understand me if I quote Homer (Simpson or that Greek guy - doesn't really matter which), so I watch for signals that confirm his understanding of my words and if I don't get those signals, I'll adjust to him by rephrasing. Ten times, if need be, 'cause I want him to understand me. That's my responsibility.

[Terumoto]

What if the person is just unable to understand, because the message is beyond the scope of their understanding?

I'll give an example: Often, my girlfriend would ask me, "what are you thinking," and I'd have to say something that explained what I was thinking about in the best way possible. Something like "Oh, ummm... I'm not really thinking about anything, I'm just sort of listening to what's around and looking at what I see and stuff." She would probably just take that as it is, but it doesn't encompass properly the whole of what I meant to convey.

I have a close friend who has a very similar state of mind to me. If he asked me, "what are you thinking," and it was the same thing I tried to explain to my girlfriend, there are so many ways I could get him to know almost exactly what I was thinking. I could look him in the eyes and snap my fingers, and he would know. I could slap him in the face, and he would know. I could just say "now," and he would know. I could say "I'm being fully aware of the present moment," and he'd get it straight away.

It's like a man asking a woman, "what does sex feel like for women?" How can the woman properly explain it so that the man really understands what it feels like? Unless the man had experienced it, or something like it before, it doesn't matter how many times you explain it or rephrase it, the message isn't going to be conveyed successfully. There might be some men that have a better chance at understanding it than others; if a gay man were asking, the woman might be able to relate it to what anal sex feels like but add some more description, then he might partially understand.

I think my point is that there are situations where no matter how well the sender can convey the message, the receiver still won't be able to understand. In those situations, it is no longer the senders responsiblity that the message was unable to be delivered.

[cdn2wheeler]

Originally Posted by Terumoto

I think my point is that there are situations where no matter how well the sender can convey the message, the receiver still won't be able to understand. In those situations, it is no longer the senders responsiblity that the message was unable to be delivered.

Well, if the receiver isn't getting the message, then clearly the sender isn't sending it well. Sending a message has to be done in a language, tone and style that the receiver understands. I don't know Morse Code, but if someone's sending Morse messages to me, it doesn't make any difference how good they are at it. I won't get the message because I don't know what all the dashes and dots means.

Is it my responsibility to learn Morse? Well, that's dependent on the context. If I'm in the Navy, then yes, it would be. In that case, it would be up to the instructor to teach me, again in a way that I understand, what all the beep-beeps mean.

And if I don't get it, then it's up to me to communicate to the instructor exactly what I'm not getting... so in that case, it's up to me to speak to the instructor in a way that he/she understands about what I'm having trouble understanding.

Regardless, it's up to the sender to make sure the message is understood. If the receiver is being deliberately difficult, well then, that's a different issue and has more to do with personalities than with communication styles.

[Terumoto]

Originally Posted by cdn2wheeler

Well, if the receiver isn't getting the message, then clearly the sender isn't sending it well. Sending a message has to be done in a language, tone and style that the receiver understands.

There are things that can't adequately be conveyed by words, no matter how articulate and descriptive the sender is being. For example, have you ever read the poem called "Faith in Mind" by Seng Ts'an? It is extremely well written, I think it conveys his message almost as perfectly as is possible. However, the nature of the message is something beyond what words can convey, so the words themselves seem to be contradictory and make no sense. That isn't the fault of the sender, he is using the words in the best way possible to convey the meaning. From there, it is up to the receiver to understand what he means by the words. Here is an excerpt:

Abiding nowhere yet everywhere,
The ten directions are right before you.
The smallest is the same as the largest
In the realm where delusion is cut off.
The largest is the same as the smallest;
No boundaries are visible.
Existence is precisely emptiness;
Emptiness is precisely existence.
If it is not like this,
Then you must not preserve it.

One is everything;
Everything is one.
If you can be like this,
Why worry about not finishing?
Faith and mind are not two;
Non-duality is faith in mind.

The path of words is cut off;
There is no past, no future, no present.

In this case, the sender has done more than he should have by trying to explain something that is unexplainable. It isn't his fault if people don't understand. With things like this, people who don't get the message have a few options. They can give up and move on, or they can ponder the words and improve their mind until they do understand. Just because the receiver isn't getting the message, doesn't mean the sender isn't sending it well.

[cdn2wheeler]

Originally Posted by Terumoto

Just because the receiver isn't getting the message, doesn't mean the sender isn't sending it well.

I wasn't familiar with the poem or poet you posted so I can't really comment on it. It's interesting, but wasn't ground-breaking or earth-shattering to me.

You're right, though, that words are often a clumsy way to send messages. Those who study these things conclude that interpersonal communication is far less about the words we use than it is about our tone, body language and whatnot (which is why communicating on a forum like this, or email, can be fraught with minefields).

Fortunately we have music, visual art, sex and countless other forms of expression.

If the point of communicating is to send messages, then it's the end result that counts. And if the end result is how well the receiver understands the message, then it's the receiver who determines how well the message has been sent. So if the receiver doesn't get it, then no matter how much we may appreciate the way that the sender is sending the message, it's still a failure.

[Terumoto]

I think I see what you're saying...

It has to be in regard to each individual situation. If Person A sends a message to Person B, and Person B doesn't properly understand it, the communication is a failure. If Person A sends exactly the same message to Person C, and Person C properly understands it, that attempt at communication is a success.

If Person A can't or doesn't adapt their message so that Person B can understand it, it's their fault.

Though, I still think that in some situations the receiver is the one that should adapt to the message, rather than the message being adapted to the receiver.

[cdn2wheeler]

Originally Posted by Terumoto

It has to be in regard to each individual situation. If Person A sends a message to Person B, and Person B doesn't properly understand it, the communication is a failure. If Person A sends exactly the same message to Person C, and Person C properly understands it, that attempt at communication is a success.

Bingo.

This thread is a good case in point. I wasn't successful in making my point clear, and that was my problem, not yours.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

Ten times, if need be, 'cause I want him to understand me. That's my responsibility.

You're still making it one-sided, which was the mistake in the first place. Here are a couple cases where it's the listener's responsibility to decode and understand the message:

1) The listener is a historian, listening to something that was said a hundred, a thousand, a million years ago. Is it the speaker's responsibility to communicate correctly to the historian, a million years in the future?

2) The listener is one of many, like a student in an auditorium. Is it the speaker's responsibility to phrase and rephrase what they say to each and every different member of her audience?

3) The listener is eavesdropping, and the communication is not directed to him. Is it the speaker's responsibility to explain his meaning to someone he's not even speaking to?

In both of these cases, the listener is the one who has a desire to understand. They want to understand and gain something from the communication. They are not empty vessels to be filled.

When this is so, it is the listener's responsibility to understand the speaker, the speaker's background, culture, context of words, etc. For instance, especially in case 3, the speaker might be using a cipher: it is then the listener's responsibility to receive the communique by decoding the encryption.

In the case of romantic relationships in specific, people often emphasize the need to listen. Why? Because you have to hear, first, in order to learn about the other person. You have to decipher them before you can encode your own message properly.

To seal the point, let me quote you:

"I watch for signals that confirm his understanding of my words"

Here, you are listening. And it's your responsibility to listen, and understand the message he is sending you: "I don't get it": in order to properly change your own message and resend with a twist so that he stops returning an error.

[JimOfferman]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

You're still making it one-sided, which was the mistake in the first place.

I'm more inclined to say that you're mistaken for assuming it is not. You are copping out by including people who are not among the intended audience of the communicator, you sly dog you!

1) The listener is a historian, listening to something that was said a hundred, a thousand, a million years ago. Is it the speaker's responsibility to communicate correctly to the historian, a million years in the future?

The speaker is not communicating with the historian, so no he is not responsible for that. The speaker is responsible only for communicating clearly with his intended target audience - the historian is definitely not part of the target audience.

2) The listener is one of many, like a student in an auditorium. Is it the speaker's responsibility to phrase and rephrase what they say to each and every different member of her audience?

Yes, then the speaker is still responsible for making his message clear to all of the students in the auditorium. Good presentations are designed to include layered explanations of the subject at hand, so that all of the intended audience has a good chance of picking up on the speaker's message.

Of course, no single presentation can explain a single subject to everyone. Again, it is the speaker's responsibility to decide what his target audience and adapt his message to that audience. You can teach physics to both first graders and college graduates, but not with the same content.

3) The listener is eavesdropping, and the communication is not directed to him. Is it the speaker's responsibility to explain his meaning to someone he's not even speaking to?

This is the same as with the historian above - the eavesdropping listener is not part of the intended audience.

When this is so, it is the listener's responsibility to understand the speaker, the speaker's background, culture, context of words, etc. For instance, especially in case 3, the speaker might be using a cipher: it is then the listener's responsibility to receive the communique by decoding the encryption.

Not knowing the cipher would be a very clear indication for the listener that he is in fact not the intended audience of the message, wouldn't you agree?

In the case of romantic relationships in specific, people often emphasize the need to listen. Why? Because you have to hear, first, in order to learn about the other person. You have to decipher them before you can encode your own message properly.

Aren't you saying here, in effect, that it is your responsibility to "encode your message properly". You want to get your message across to the other person, so you listen, try to understand the language, until you are certain that you can deliver the right message back.

To seal the point, let me quote you:

"I watch for signals that confirm his understanding of my words"

Here, you are listening. And it's your responsibility to listen, and understand the message he is sending you: "I don't get it": in order to properly change your own message and resend with a twist so that he stops returning an error.

Yes, as the speaker I am responsible for listening for the message that confirms or denies his understanding of my words. That is exactly what I have been saying all along!

Now, what remains of your whole argument seems to be that in the moment where the listener confirms or denies his understanding of my words, the roles are reversed. In that moment, he is the speaker and I am the listener, so he is responsible. Fair enough, I'll grant you that.

So, in the end, it all boils down to semantics: does the act of speaking include listening for the "I (don't) get it" message back from the listener? I'd say it is, but you apparently think it is not?

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

I'm more inclined to say that you're mistaken for assuming it is not. You are copping out by including people who are not among the intended audience of the communicator, you sly dog you!

That's exactly my point, though. It is not Shakespeare's responsibility that I understand the nuances of Hamlet or Othello. It is not Bradbury's responsibility that Martians grasp his metaphors.

By making it clear that the speaker doesn't have a responsibility in certain situations, then the burden of successful communication rests on the listener's part, not the speaker.

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

Aren't you saying here, in effect, that it is your responsibility to "encode your message properly". You want to get your message across to the other person, so you listen, try to understand the language, until you are certain that you can deliver the right message back.

Yes, but the listener is doing that, too. A good listener carefully decodes the expression offered to him, so that he can deliver the right message back, whether it's "I understand," or "I don't get it."

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

So, in the end, it all boils down to semantics: does the act of speaking include listening for the "I (don't) get it" message back from the listener? I'd say it is, but you apparently think it is not?

What's the difference between a speaker and a listener? The speaker simply starts the conversation.

Here, this diagram explains it well:

from: TCP 3 WAY HANDSHAKE: Educational resources, tips, tricks, and more.

In each diagonal arrow, you have an expression. One of the participants is communicating something to the other participant.

I think this is why you don't agree with the analogy to modems: you're conflating the role of speaker and listener such that a person must be both at the same time.

But come on: how well do you listen while you're talking?

[JimOfferman]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

I think this is why you don't agree with the analogy to modems: you're conflating the role of speaker and listener such that a person must be both at the same time.

No, I didn't agree with the modem analogy because modems can only transmit data back and forth. They do not interpret the data to understand the underlying message, like humans do.

And aren't modems always both speaker and listener?

Seems to me like you have taken my original point (about the responsibility of the speaker when delivering a single message to his listeners) and widened the scope of the discussion until it fit your point of view. That doesn't make for much of a fair fight, does it?

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

No, I didn't agree with the modem analogy because modems can only transmit data back and forth. They do not interpret the data to understand the underlying message, like humans do.

And aren't modems always both speaker and listener?

I've explained already how modems do, in fact, interpret data exactly as human beings do. Admittedly, I did expand it from merely "modems" to a full network stack, but the point stands: data received by a modem is just as interpreted as data received by eyes and ears.

Modems, like humans, only do one thing at a time. So no, they are not always both speaker and listener. Just as we do, they alternate between the roles. Quickly, and efficiently, because that's what they were built for. Just as we do, our ears remain working even as our mouth moves: that's why a sudden noise will surprise you while you're speaking.

But that surprise generates a reaction: you look in that direction, your ears perk up, you switch to full receptivity and stop talking, because you need to hear and understand what just happened.

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

Seems to me like you have taken my original point (about the responsibility of the speaker when delivering a single message to his listeners) and widened the scope of the discussion until it fit your point of view. That doesn't make for much of a fair fight, does it?

I never disagreed that a speaker has responsibility. I said you were right, didn't I? But assuming that the listener has no responsibility to, you know, listen is incorrect.

If you are the speaker, then of course it does not matter what responsibilities the listener has. You are busy being a telemarketer; who cares what they think? Just grab their attention and force yourself on them. All the listening you do is just a calculation to figure out how to push your own product more effectively.

That doesn't mean the listener has no responsibility. Just as it's the speaker's responsibility to be understandable, it is the listener's responsibility to understand. In a relationship of equals, a listener who puts his hand in your face, turns away, and walks off, is failing his responsibility because he's not listening.

If you are trying to "win" some kind of fight, then fine. I cede whatever glories and honors you desire. But I was under the impression that I had started this thread to explain why a listener has a responsibility. If you thought it was about you, then I'd have to apologize for the inconvenience of talking about something you weren't listening to.

[JimOfferman]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

If you thought it was about you, then I'd have to apologize for the inconvenience of talking about something you weren't listening to.

No, I need to apologize for taking too narrow a view of your words. I don't know why exactly, but I took your words for fighting words and felt compelled to defend myself. Sorry for letting the stupid male dominance thing take over for a bit...