Minimal? I’d start with “What are the components of successful communication?” For communication, you have a minimum of two brains connected by the activity of communication. The components that allow for communication to take place that lay beneath the content being communicated is what you’re looking for at minimum. By analogy, functioning computer network.

Minimal? I’d start with “What are the components of successful communication?”

For communication, you have a minimum of two brains connected by the activity of communication.

The components that allow for communication to take place that lay beneath the content being communicated is what you’re looking for at minimum.

By analogy, functioning computer network.

For proper understanding of a process, I think minimal implicitness is critical even if it adds to verbosity.

In fiction, the behavior on Star Trek (based on a movie understanding of Naval protocol) where everything is relayed back as understood would be similar to a networking handshake.

—–

For contrast, consider what happens in everyday conversation, especially online:

Without a common glossary, language is extraordinarily flexible and in that flexibility, multiple layers of meaning can be conveyed.

So, what happens is people talk “past each other”. The words’ external appearances may form the same shapes but carry different meaning, resulting in lack of consensus and long drawn out arguments.

That’s not to say that a limited glossary is the answer either.

That can stifle communication by putting extra effort in the production of output.

Rather the receiver should open up more room for more meanings to arrive for further analysis and a better resolution.

Or: “Listen for intent”. [unless the game of “missed intent” is being played. I do that and it’s fun]

=======

Being “too literal” by nature has compelled me, from a young age, to reason through “What Are They REALLY Saying?”

I get less of a headache going it now than when I was 12 and pissed off at “Close Reading” tests which ask “WHAT IS THE AUTHOR’S INTENT?” and giving me a list of 5 choices that ALL look possible to me…

…and it’s become an ongoing challenge. I try to take what’s implicit and make it explicit.

I’ll try to turn a conversation of code into getting people to talk “literal” which occasionally pisses them off, and I’ve gotten enough eye rolls through the years by people who genuinely seem to believe, “Oh, that idiot has no idea what we’re talking about” (when I did) that I long ago went past ‘grown numb’ to it and now find it a source of amusement.

======

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


× two = 6

Leave a Reply