Is this true that communication is difficulty when ...

[Yukio]

someone is two points bellow or two points above you in the IQ tests?
By the way, I mean two SIGMA points , or two levels of Standard Deviation ...

[Shamou]

The important components in communication by order of importance are...

a. Body language 70%.

b. The tone and modulation of voice 23%

c. Words 7%

However, nothing is said about IQ difference... but, I highly doubt that two points would make much of a difference...

.

[openeyes]

Two points, in terms of two standard deviations, would be 30 IQ points, which is a fairly large difference, with 100 being considered normal, 130 the beginnings of genius, and 70 borderline retarded (if that term is still used). Without going to extremes, I could see that being an issue.

On another thread discussing intelligence this article came up:

The Prometheus Society > Articles > The Outsiders

It has a section mentioning the 30 point range, quoted here:

"Observation shows that there is a direct ratio between the intelligence of the leader and that of the led. To be a leader of his contemporaries a child must be more intelligent but not too much more intelligent than those to be led... But generally speaking, a leadership pattern will not form--or it will break up--when a discrepancy of more than about 30 points of IQ comes to exist between leader and led [3, p. 287].

The implication is that there is a limit beyond which genuine communication between different levels of intelligence becomes impossible."

Another interesting quote comes right before it,

"there is a certain restricted portion of the total range of intelligence which is most favorable to the development of successful and well-rounded personality in the world as it now exists. This limited range appears to be somewhere between 125 and 155 IQ. Children and adolescents in this area are enough more intelligent than the average to win the confidence of large numbers of their fellows, which brings about leadership, and to manage their own lives with superior efficiency. Moreover, there are enough of them to afford mutual esteem and understanding. But those of 170 IQ and beyond are too intelligent to be understood by the general run of persons with whom they make contact. They are too infrequent to find congenial companions. They have to contend with loneliness and personal isolation from their contemporaries throughout the period of their immaturity. To what extent these patterns become fixed, we cannot yet tell"

[InJoy]

Originally Posted by Shamou

The important components in communication by order of importance are...

a. Body language 70%.

b. The tone and modulation of voice 23%

c. Words 7%


.

Holy cow! No wonder there are so many misunderstandings with message board communications! Long live emoticons!

[Brutha]

Holy cow! No wonder there are so many misunderstandings with message board communications! Long live emoticons!

It isn't a statement of facts, it is a statement of opinion.

Made up numbers.
(before you look up and find the "real numbers", the 55/38/7 is based on an "misunderstanding".

As long as you put your claims into numbers it get so much more believeable hm
60% of all emoticons reduce the level of understanding!

@the topic:
Good Communication is always difficult, but does it matter whether something is difficult? Practice wins.

[Shamou]

Originally Posted by InJoy

Holy cow! No wonder there are so many misunderstandings with message board communications! Long live emoticons!

Glad you put a smiling emoticon after calling me "Holly cow" (just kidding)

.

[Shamou]

Originally Posted by Brutha

It isn't a statement of facts, it is a statement of opinion.

Made up numbers.
(before you look up and find the "real numbers", the 55/38/7 is based on an "misunderstanding".

As long as you put your claims into numbers it get so much more believeable hm
60% of all emoticons reduce the level of understanding!

@the topic:
Good Communication is always difficult, but does it matter whether something is difficult? Practice wins.

Thank you for the link... very interesting....

Real communication is far from being easy... and one rule that I try to follow is one offered by NLP (Neuro-linguistic Programming) is: "When trying to communicate most of the time we are simply hallucinating together." (Hallucination is simply a reality that is not shared)

.

[Shamou]

Originally Posted by openeyes

Two points, in terms of two standard deviations, would be 30 IQ points, which is a fairly large difference, with 100 much more intelligent than those to be led... But generally speaking, a leadership pattern will not form--or it will break up--when a discrepancy of more than about 30 points of IQ comes to exist between leader and led [3, p. 287].

Thank you for sharing that with us... very interesting...

.

[InJoy]

Originally Posted by Shamou

Thank you for the link... very interesting....

Real communication is far from being easy... and one rule that I try to follow is one offered by NLP (Neuro-linguistic Programming) is: "When trying to communicate most of the time we are simply hallucinating together." (Hallucination is simply a reality that is not shared)

I've seen lots of references to this (NLP) here on this site. Do you know of any good online resources where I might learn more about it?

[Shamou]

Originally Posted by InJoy

I've seen lots of references to this (NLP) here on this site. Do you know of any good online resources where I might learn more about it?

I don't know of any particular online resources but Anthony Robbins's book "Unlimited Power" is a very good source... you can also find many references to for it in his second book, "Awaken the Giant Within"

Most of Robbins's work is based on NLP...

.

[InJoy]

Originally Posted by Shamou

you can also find many references to for it in his second book, "Awaken the Giant Within"

Most of Robbins's work is based on NLP...

.

Is that right? Funny, I own that book and credit it with some life-changing affects on my thinking some six or seven years ago. Yet I don't recall anything about NLP in it. I was in a deep dark place back then. Maybe I wasn't ready to absorb it. Maybe it's time to go swipe it off the shelf and take another look. (Sheesh, you should see my reading queue right now. I need more eyes! LOL)

Btw, Shamou, yesterday I checked out that TED (A.R.) video you linked to the other day. It was fantastic, and fun, and motivating (and, and, and) and it made me want to go see him in person. Thanks for the link.

[Shamou]

Originally Posted by InJoy

Is that right? Funny, I own that book and credit it with some life-changing affects on my thinking some six or seven years ago. Yet I don't recall anything about NLP in it.

Well, since you are familiar with Tony’s work… you know how much emphasis he puts on emotions to propel anyone toward whatever success we want… as in… great passion is the edge of champions…

In a nutshell… NLP demonstrate that there is a correlation between the mental state and the physical posture and breathing pattern of individuals… (most of us know that) but what is not so well known is that by changing our posture and breathing pattern… we can change our state…

Now, let us say that you are working on an important project… and, it’s not going according to plan… you feel down and a little depress… what do you do…???

You jump up… assume your best Batman (or Batwomen) stance… you walk around for a minute or so… the brain gets the message… depressed no more… you are invincible… you can’t fail… instant change of state… with corresponding results…

You knew that… did you not…

.

[InJoy]

Originally Posted by Shamou

You knew that… did you not…

.

Actually... I did not.

It does make perfect sense to me though. Thank you for taking the time to tell me about it. I'm definitely putting that book back in my queue. It's time for another read.

[Another Jen]

With regards to online NLP resources, one of the growing communities specifically nlp related that I know is NLPConnections(I think it has about 3000 members at the present moment).

[InJoy]

Thank you Jen!

[Shamou]

NLP (neuro-linguistic programing) teaches that when people are really trying to communicate they should view the process as if the debaters were hallucinating together. In that context, the word hallucinating should be viewed as two or more persons who do not share the same reality.

What they are actually saying is that since the words used does not have the same meaning or connotation for every one, we can never be certain that the message that we are trying to convey is perceived as it was intended to be. So, the response to our message or communication is bound to be flawed. Thus, strictly speaking, if we are not using the same form of language and believe that we are, we are hallucinating together… that is, we are not sharing a common reality.

Communicating with that option in mind is called ‘transderivational researches.’

That being said… I was wondering what your opinion was on that proposition…

.

[Yukio]

Humm ... like when someone say "Cool" !?

[InJoy]

Originally Posted by Shamou

That being said… I was wondering what your opinion was on that proposition…

.

Shamou, whom are you addressing?

[Shamou]

Originally Posted by InJoy

Shamou, whom are you addressing?

Anyone of the 5,810 members of this site...

.

[InJoy]

LOL, as soon as I pressed "Post" I thought that very thing. I would have deleted the question had I not known the speed at which you are capable of reading and responding to a post!

I wish I knew enough about the subject to give you an intelligent answer. I'm curious. Guess I'll have to depend on the other 5808. (Ha! You counted yourself! So let's hear your answer! )

[Shamou]

Originally Posted by InJoy

(Ha! You counted yourself! So let's hear your answer! )

You have to be a girl... 'cause you're too cute not to be...

Here is my take on transderivational researches...

I believe that it is quite accurate... most of the time we are hallucinating together... but, it is next to impossible to take that into consideration when we are having a conversation...

However, I can reasonably say that I try to view most everything that is said to me as being subject to further consideration... as if my interpretation of it was not set in stone...

.

[Brutha]

NLP Weekly is some kind of blog that trys to teach NLP. The site has also a nice forum.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Shamou

What they are actually saying is that since the words used does not have the same meaning or connotation for every one, we can never be certain that the message that we are trying to convey is perceived as it was intended to be. So, the response to our message or communication is bound to be flawed. Thus, strictly speaking, if we are not using the same form of language and believe that we are, we are hallucinating together… that is, we are not sharing a common reality.

Communicating with that option in mind is called ‘transderivational researches.’

Searching for "Transderivational researches" only shows a few results, of which your posts are at the top Shamou. Perhaps you mean transderivational searches?

I agree with that proposition 100%, and with its parent transderivational morphology. It's something that I've been thinking about a lot recently, particularly whenever I read a thread on the topic of Subjective Reality. It seems painfully clear that different people have assigned very different meanings to the same words, even when used in the same context.

Robert Feynman commented on this:

We can't define anything precisely. If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers… one saying to the other: "you don't know what you are talking about!". The second one says: "what do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you? What do you mean by know?"

But like Feynman I find the open-ended nature of the universe fascinating, including language and our use of it. To me lack of certainty is no reason for distress. And my interpretation of someone else's words is also always open to change.

[Yukio]

Some professions would have a average near the 130 IQ points.
Like doctors or engineers. A genius IQ would need to rank at 160 or more. This is like two standard deviations of the average professional.

Some people wanted persons with 150+ IQ. There could be a negative or evil connotation on a "Genius IQ" level.

[Shamou]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Searching for "Transderivational researches" only shows a few results, of which your posts are at the top Shamou. Perhaps you mean transderivational searches?

You see me with eggs all over my face...

Of course I should have said "transderivational searches"

And... thanks for that post... very interesting...

.