On Thu, 28 Sep 2000 20:00:38 -0500, you wrote:
>Thanks Ian,
>
>How about that we agree to communicate?
Can we have that inscribed on the doors to the UN security council
please?
>Let's suppose that we state at the
>outset that each party is committed to understanding and seeking to be
>understood by the other party? Many times, I feel that a big word is used
>for precision because we don't want to use too many words.
>
Sometimes this is the case. In other situations we need the big words.
It's like math on a finer scale. E=MC^2 is wonderful to behold because
of it's simplicity.
I have read a lot of the posts that, I assume, you are referring to.
They tell me nothing. The language gets in the way of the message.
When asked to clarify we get deluged in bombastic <doh!> prose.
Read the signs. The person who does this has no wish to communicate.
Smile politely and let it slide...
In general we can write a paragraph to say something or we can write
it in shorthand which, we assume, is common knowledge to those who
follow a given group/discussion.
Sadly the informal nature of the internet has also bread dreadful
habits in many of us. RTFM, see the FAQ etc. etc.
>Ian, I really believe we have a fear of communication. Don't say too much.
>Be seen and not heard. A fool uttereth all his knowledge. And so forth.
Perhaps this is true. I tend to seek out people for whom this maxim
would not work... I do like to talk with people, provoke the quiet
into reaction with <whatever it takes>. This is in my nature. I tend
to limit it somewhat these days. Learned that it can create more harm
than good.
>
>Something that is interesting in the communication of the internet, is that
>it is much more dynamic. In a book or a paper, the audience must be entirely
>passive. This is not the case with this new medium. We have the leisure of
>the written word coupled with the feedback of the spoken word. I said
>leisure, because, as you say I can think about it, look at it, ask a friend
>about it, and so forth. And then, I can come back to you for clarification.
>
Yes. But this lacks the intimacy of a good book. A well written book
will first set the tone in which information is shared. Not unlike
mediations. The writer attempts to sync their mind with ours so that
we can *share* something that they have seen.
You have to decide with whom you wish to spend that leisure time. When
I was a child a man said to me "Show me your friends and I'll tell you
who you are"... As I child I found this to be a very naive view of the
world. As an adult I see things differently.
>But with the addition of feedback, I can ask for clarity. However, no one
>wants to ask another person what a word means. "Go look that up in a
>dictionary" the teacher would say.
Well a dictionary is a wonderful thing to have to hand :) "Never argue
with a man who does not own a dictionary and an atlas..."
I tend to ask for clarification. Word, especially in English, can have
so many meanings. And then there is sarcasm, irony and satire to
contend with...
I find www.dictionary.com helps somewhat.
>
>I saw the former CEO of Netscape in an interview the other day. The
>interviewer used a word the CEO (his name escapes me) did not know, and the
>CEO said very unselfconsciously, "I don't know what that word means, could
>you tell me?" That CEO was able to set aside his fear of looking dumb, in
>order to communicate.
Nice to see. If you actually *do* that in meetings you will be amazed
at how often you have confounded the person who used the word...
>
>But shouldn't the burden of communication be on the communicator? Shouldn't
>the communicator attempt to put the audience at ease and make his point?
>
This depends upon the communication.
Some things *ARE* hard to grasp. There is pain in the learning of some
of life's lessons. I use a tag-line in e-mail at work that I stole
from someone in this forum, I think.
"Perspicuity is the soul of erudition"
When I saw that tag line I wondered and, next time I was near a
dictionary, I had myself a belly laugh. If I had this explained to me
I wouldn't have *got* it...
Much of life is like this. The lessons we learn enable us to learn
other lessons. It's entirely possible that many of the posts I've been
skipping here due to "verbosity" will at some point in the future make
more sense to me.
Where I sit presently they _appear_ to offer little value other than
to show that the authors have a good command of the English language.
This could indicate that I'm still too callow to *get* it or it could
indicate that the authors are looking to mask their own lack of
knowledge.
If the authors wish to *share* their perspective rather than to joust
the communication is flawed (for me). If jousting is their intent then
this works for me. They will have shut *me* up because the "signal"
<content of information> is not worth the processing time <reading
dictionary> necessary to understand what is being said.
Each of us has our own SNR <signal to noise>. We will find it more
comfortable to deal with people with a similar SNR. Occasionally there
will be people who have *important* information that breaks this
model. In my experience I believe that these *jump out* at us and that
we do not, in fact, miss as many as we might fear...
I might be wrong.
>Precision in language is especially important in a static communication. But
>in a dynamic communication feedback allows for clarity. So, if I am unclear
>or ambiguous, I can count on you to point that out. Then I can explain
>myself further. And, I depend on you to help me express my ideas, and I
>depend on you to help me further them so that we can grow in knowledge
>together.
>
I think I get what you are saying... but (always the but) this is how
we play chinese whispers...
We can mistake much more with informal language than with more formal
language. It's friendlier to be informal but at some points clarity
can become more important.
The author is the person who gets to set the tone. The reader gets to
decide if it's worth the effort to hear what this person is saying.
Sometimes we must let the conversation slide.
>However, the present state of internet communication is combative. We argue
>with each other incessantly to one-up the other guy and win the debate with
>the big words.
>
Yes.
>My points are:
>1. The burden of listener comprehension is on the speaker
Certainly at the start of a discussion...
>2. The internet allows for feedback
Yes.
>3. Communication should be a cooperative effort
Yes. I would try to include a concept of "sharing". A win-win
situation being optimum.
>4. Fear should be removed from the exchange
Ahhh. Not necessarily... Depends upon what is being discussed is scary
or not. In debating God/Damnation there is always the fear.
Certainly fear of a lack of knowledge should *never* become a reason
not to participate. Provided you are willing to do the footwork to
learn enough to participate.
>5. We should worry more about too little communication than too much
>communication
I get 500+ e-mail a day. I worry more about quality (smile) than
anything else.
>
>Your point is that is important to use a precise word.
Not quite. At certain points precision become the most important
thing. In what I consider to be good posts the author with explain a
key concept in both formal and informal terms.
Like a discussion we had about "sacred" things. The "debate" wasn't
won by anybody but everybody got to say where they stood. The clarity
of saying what the word "sacred" was used to symbolize was important
to prevent people from thinking that there was agreement where there
was none.
>
>So if we communicated, we might agree to this: One should always use the
>most precise and easiest to understand words.
>
>What do you think?
The above is spot on for me. OMMV Where precision is necessary it
should be used. The author chooses this. If the reader has questions
about other parts then they can be answered with more precise language
/ addison thought.
regards,
Ian
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:47 BST