*2/13/06 - I'm bumping up this post because Joe contributed an interesting link, and because the conversation in the comments took an interesting turn that might be worth reviving.*
We've all been in discussions/arguments where we feel like both parties are just saying the same thing over and over again. Sometimes those things keep going because the 2 sides genuinely don't understand each other. But often they keep going because of the sources of error that are built into the way we communicate.
Consider this simple model.
My thought --> my choice and delivery of words --1--> your reception/interpretation of my words --> your thought in response --2--> your choice and delivery of words --3--> my reception/interpretation of the response
Each arrow is a potential source of so much distortion. I thought about this and decided to color code it. The green processes and arrows are things I tend to consider carefully; the red I overlook too often.
While I put a great deal of thought into choosing my words to carefully convey as precise a meaning as I can, I often overlook the reality that words mean different things to different people. I already know the point I'm trying to make, so that biases my interpretation of my own words. I need to give more consideration to this idea, which is marked by that first red arrow.
There's a lot more red on your side of the communication process, and I want to be more aware of those. I don't often consider that your choice of words might not precisely reflect exactly what you're thinking, hence the 2nd red arrow. I don't usually think about how casually/carefully people choose their words, hence the first red text. And the third red arrow is because even if I assumed that everyone chooses their words very carefully (I don't think it is a bad thing that most people don't choose their words as carefully as I do, it is just a factor of personality and mood), that still overlooks that you might have a different idea of the meaning of the words than I do.
And the last red text is because I don't often consider that I could be misinterpreting your words. I need to take more responsibility for that.
Each of those sources of error can build on themselves, compounding the severity of the miscommunication. The green arrows that I think I understand fairly well can still be big sources of error, I just tend to be more aware of the possibility of error at those points than at the others.
So when I sense a miscommunication, I tend to assume that an error must have occurred at one of the green points and I try to correct that when the true source of the error was elsewhere. If both parties in the conversation do that, it could easily result in the phenomenon I described at the start - an endless frustrating argument where both people say the same things over and over.
7 comments:
by way of your color coded model it seems as though you fall short at the most crucial part of two-way communication: the feedback and analysis. however, you seemingly hold conversations with people on this blog and in person fairly well (and by fairly well, i mean that people continue to engage in difficult - read as "requiring much effort" - and complex - read as "of many parts" - discussions with you and you effectively communicate your points in most circumstances). i do read a tendency of self-centeredness, which may explain your failing to consider (by your own admission) your partner's diction and your own spin on their choice (i also say "partner" as opposed to "audience" to remind you that in a sincere effort to share ideas one cannot approach the exchange with a strong intention to convince and a lack of consideration when listening).
i wonder if when confronted with a clash of ideas or beliefs you can speak and be content with neither side budging. can you, adspar, listen and be listened to for the sake of learning who and what's out there? or must every discussion end in one side's concession? i assume the latter, but perhaps i read you wrong.
there are times when communication between parties occurs to specifically reach a compromise. in that case, your power of persuasion based on unfailing logic do you well, just beware of the human aspects you sometimes miss: Think Madden and The Angry Roommate or Post-Menopausal Kidneys.
that being said, it's very convenient for commentors to crucify a man for his less than honorable admissions, but i get the feeling you aren't the type to easily feel persecuted.
communication is hard but words and actions are all we have. deeds, not intentions.
disclaimer: blog comments are particularly notorious for being used against their author.
i think that i spend different amounts of time/effort on my green end depending on my audience. i'm sorry to say that my comments on your blog do not receive my usual amount of consideration for how others will interpret my words, because it's too anonymous in one sense and because i know that you personally don't really care what i think. it's much harder for you, because you obviously care how the people reading your blog perceive you. i think you do a pretty good job explaining yourself and are much more patient with everyone then i would be.
you're wrong about bush by the way. you should concede to us. i've been meaning to spend some time writing about how your defense of the spying on americans program totally contradicts your atheism thing...but i'm too lazy.
Could...not...resist...
I know this is not what this thread is about, but I seriously have the need to blurt out a bunch of things in support of my boy AdSpar.
There was no "spying" occurring here within the United States on particular citizens as is the fashionable thing to say nowadays. Just as it is suddenly fashionable to call the White House a bunch of racists, plantation owners, and idiots...apparently in certain company just saying those things can really increase your stature and make people think you're enlightened.
So here is my analogy for the alleged "spying" that has been going on here in the US of A. Yes, this is a perfectly appropriate analogy.
Scenario A: (something which I WOULD consider spying) A man in a well-fitting black suit with a conserative tie and sensible rubber soled black shoes follows you around listening to every conversation YOU have. He taps YOUR phone and reads YOUR mail. He follows YOU when you go to Taco Bell and listens to the things you say to your friends and others. THIS would be considered spying. Nevermind the fact that anything you say in public is not private because you have no reasonable expectation of privacy for anything you say or do at or around the Taco Bell.
I'd also like to add that due the very high regard in which civil liberties are held in this nation, (believe it or not! Don't believe me? Go to Russia or Asia or South America then we'll talk.) this system of surveilling those who need to be surveilled is very flawed in favor of privacy. We've all seen mob movies and know the "man" has to "turn off the tape" if they hear two mobsters on the phone pretending to talk to their wives or such. At this point then can quickly discuss their important evil business in relative secrecy. (See: Casino) This policy and practice is so widely known that it is exploited by the naughty enemy fairly effortlessly at times. What is worse is that by not having the ability to track all of the lines of known "evil people", (again, not YOU, quit thinking the govt gives a shit about what you told you mom on the phone last week), it severely hampers efforts to learn the code in which different cadres of terrorists communicate.
Scenario B: (what the gov't did, which I contend is NOT spying) The same well dressed man sits on a street corner outside of a mosque or third party money remitter known to send money to the middle east to suspected terrorist cells. He sits THERE and listens to people as they walk by him. If they talk about lunch or what a douche the President is, the man ignores it. He IGNORES and DOES NOT record it. This is how he works. This is what he does. This is how he is programmed and supervised. Now, if they perhaps talk about blowing something up, the man writes down a note about the people who walked by, as he has every right to do.
End of story. Who honestly has a problem with Scenario B? Anybody?
Bueller?
Now, do NOT forget the following three things:
1. This man in scenario B is likely a bunch of enormous computers listening for words or dialects. Thus even if you were discussing dinner plans, its not like some idiot Fed would ever have a chance to giggle or snicker at what you were saying. It is a harmless, machine of metal and bolts. No pulse. As long as you do not say, for example "bomb. me. planning. in. put. statue. liberty. of. tuesday. elephant." then you don't exist to the machine.
2. Noone is targeting YOU. YOU are of no particular interest to the government. Now, should YOU start talking about blowing up buildings, then this status could change. But, uh, shouldn't it?
3. Free speech does not cover incitements to violence or plotting to destroy lives and or properties. So you know what ACLU, cry on this, but yeah, you talk about that stuff in that context. Well you lose some rights.
I say these things as a registered democrat who voted for Gore (well, moreso against Bush) in 2000, and who will likely vote blue again in 2008.
To end, I will quote one of the icons of the Democratic (see: pansies, minorities, and me) party when I beg you to stop bitching and "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do...." I think you know the rest.
Nobody ever wants the well dressed man around unless they need something.
Cara - here's an email I recently wrote in response to an editorial I was forwarded. This should clarify my stance, and perhaps illustrate how what you see as contradiction is actually me learning from the conversations I've had.
My response:
In recent arguments, I've taken a similar stance to this author. While I strongly agree with his overall message (especially his disturbing point that people who politically oppose the current administration seem to be willing to sink the whole country as long as they take Bush down with them), opponents in my arguments have made one good point that hadn't occurred to me and that I'll share with you all. Interestingly, this author overlooks this point in his "fact #1" but then uses for his own purpose later.
The first thing he asks is "who was hurt by these actions?" with the implication being "if there's no harm, then its no foul." But I'm sure Mr. Peters would recognize that if the information leaks that he (rightly, in my opinion) considers traitorous, never actually help or lead to a terrorist act, the actions were still traitorous. Similarly, even if there were no obvious victims of Bush's questionable tactics, that doesn't necessarily make them acceptable. If his actions RISKED direct or indirect harm, they were still inappropriate.
In my opinion, the only way the "big brother tactics" risk harm is if they were illegal (my very limited and non-expert examination of that question makes me think that they probably were in some grey area and thus not clearly illegal). While I personally have no problem with those tactics, and think that they SHOULD HAVE BEEN legal, if they were in fact not legal, it sets a very dangerous precedent that the executive branch can circumvent the other branches, or at his own personal discretion the President can break his vow to uphold the constitution.
Even if the actions were clearly illegal, I probably still don't have a problem with what Bush did because I imagine his thought process was that he'd rather break the law and risk the consequences than fail to take an important measure to protect our country. I think he was doing it for noble reasons, not from some personal crusade to strengthen his own power. For that reason, I don't think any negative action should be taken against Bush, even if his actions are ruled to have been illegal.
However I think people that object on the grounds that the President breaking a law is more harmful to the country than the potential good it did in protecting against terrorist attack have a good argument that deserves to be considered as we move forward and make laws to govern this specific kind of situation in the future.
More astonishing than me springing to life with an extensive political commentary is that when I ran the spell check at the end of writing this, it revealed no spelling errors. I suspect that they'll be building igloos in hell by the time you read this.
Responding to this article (sorry for the bad spacing, don't care enough to format):
INTEL, LIES & TREASON
By RALPH PETERS
ACCORDING to the Democratic Party's leaders, we all have been betrayed
by the Bush administration's Big Brother intelligence tactics as evil
government operatives invaded the privacy of innocent Americans.
Stop lying. Show us the victims.
Name one honest citizen who has been targeted by our intelligence
system. Name one innocent man or woman whose life has been destroyed.
Come on, Nancy. Give it up, Howard. Name just one.
Can't do it? OK. Let's dispense with the partisan rhetoric and reach
for the facts:
1) Has a single reader of this column suffered personally from our
government's efforts to defend us against terrorists? Have any of your
relatives or even your remotest acquaintances felt our Intel system
intrude into their lives?
That's what I always ask the group-think lefties. Not one has ever
been able to answer "Yes."
2) The same big-lie politicians attacking the president's efforts to
uncover plots against America by monitoring terrorist communications
will be the first to shriek that the War on Terror has failed when
we're attacked again.
They want it both ways: Drop our defenses, then blame Bush when
terrorists strike.
3) The "eavesdropping" operations revealed so sanctimoniously by The
New York Times aimed exclusively at foreign terrorists and their
willing contacts on our soil. When such operations are "exposed," the
terrorists find ways to work around them. Doesn't it just make sense
to keep secrets from enemies who announce they want to kill Americans?
Who already have killed Americans?
4) Would the Pelosi-Dean gang prefer to give the terrorists the run of
the house? For all of their whining, the ultra-Dems have never laid
out a coherent, detailed strategy of their own for fighting terror.
Show us your plan!
5) Contrary to the nonsense concocted by Hollywood ("King Kong" was
far more realistic than "Syriana"), the intelligence community isn't
populated by evil sneaks plotting to destroy the constitution and
assassinate bothersome citizens from the bridge of the Starship
Enterprise.
I worked in the intel field for 22 years and still give occasional
lectures at various agencies, and the truth is that analysts and
technicians work in cubicles that would make Dilbert run screaming.
Recent recruiting efforts mean that more-senior officials work in
cubicles, too.
Our intelligence professionals could make more money in private
industry. But they serve because they believe in our country and their
mission. And not one of them goes to work in the morning asking, "How
can I do a bad job for my fellow citizens today? How can I subvert the
Constitution?"
6) Our intelligence system has so many built-in safeguards to protect
the personal information of our citizens that it seemed like overkill
to me. Intelligence reports couldn't include even a passing reference
to any American citizen by name (given the variety of American names,
we did a lot of scrambling to conform to the very strict rules).
My fellow Americans, the real threats to your information security are
Google, eBay, chat rooms, credit applications, junk mail, etc. And the
Democratic National Committee holds vastly more information about
individual American citizens in its files than do all of our
intelligence agencies combined.
7) Self-interested renegades posing as whistleblowers aren't patriots,
they're traitors. Not one of the recent "anonymous sources" has been
able to cite a single example of an innocent American harmed by our
intelligence campaign against Islamist terrorists.
The leaks that so badly compromised our security were made to score
political points by those who place their personal and political
vendettas above our nation's safety.
8) We need to get serious about treason and the destructive culture of
leaks - on both sides of the aisle. Let's face it: Both political
parties have served our country badly with their use of leaks for
partisan purposes.
Compromising classified information, for any purpose and at any level,
is a serious crime. Those who betray their trust and harm our national
defense need to go to jail - for life. If we were truly serious, we'd
treat treason as a capital offense again.
THE dishonesty and cynicism on the American left is breathtaking. The
only reason the Dems are hand-wringing over the imaginary threat to
your personal secrets is that every other approach has failed them.
They couldn't get the traction they expected by betraying our troops
and declaring Iraq a failure (note how shamelessly the Dems have
deserted Cindy Sheehan as her nuttiness turned radioactive - they'll
bail on John Murtha, too, as he gets whackier). Now they're trying to
convince you that Big Brother Bush is peeping through the blinds to
make sure you and your spouse stick to the missionary position.
The truth is that you are being endangered. By politicians so
desperate to gain power that they willingly pave the way for terrorist
attacks.
The Dean-Pelosi chapter of the Osama bin Laden Fan Club has provided
aid and comfort to our enemies. Reasoned dissent is patriotic, but
serving as propaganda agents for mass murderers is something else. Now
the Dem extremists are welcoming the compromise of clandestine
programs to prevent terrorist attacks.
They, not Bush, are flouting our laws. By encouraging the compromise
of classified material. And you will pay.
When the Islamist killers come to our soil again and left-wing
politicians attempt to exploit our dead by howling that the War on
Terror failed, just remember who it was that gave away our secrets
to the terrorists.
Ralph Peters is a former military intelligence officer.
by way of your color coded model it seems as though you fall short at the most crucial part of two-way communication: the feedback and analysis. however, you seemingly hold conversations with people on this blog and in person fairly well (and by fairly well, i mean that people continue to engage in difficult - read as "requiring much effort" - and complex - read as "of many parts" - discussions with you and you effectively communicate your points in most circumstances).
I'll take that as a compliment. The red areas are where I think I'm weaker than green. I might still be pretty good at the red, or I might be wrong in my heavily biased self-analysis.
i wonder if when confronted with a clash of ideas or beliefs you can speak and be content with neither side budging. can you, adspar, listen and be listened to for the sake of learning who and what's out there? or must every discussion end in one side's concession? i assume the latter, but perhaps i read you wrong.
How I respond to differences depend on the cirumstances, including the strength of my conviction on the matter and the relationship with the dissenter. Regardless, my contentment is not easily disturbed.
just beware of the human aspects you sometimes miss
Hence my fascination with, and study of, human nature.
cara said "it's much harder for you, because you obviously care how the people reading your blog perceive you." to adspar.
i think she reads him wrong. adspar is not one to concern himself with what others think of him. he does however care that his message is accurately perceived. whether someone calls him arrogant or self-righteous matters not in that he cares for their approval, however it does matter if the point he wanted to make wasn't appropriately expressed by him or accurately received by another. i don't think i wrote that in an easily understandable way, so if someone else gets it and can write it out better, feel free. and if adspar thinks i don't know what i'm talking about, again feel free.
and that was meant as a compliment, or more so, my statement was an effort to inform you that you might be selling yourself short if you did not realize your relative success in communicating with other people.
this is probably going to be buried, but here's an interesting link, likely for posterity
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70179-0.html?tw=wn_index_2
People are pretty bad at interpreting emotional tone in email's, and I imagine for IM's and any text communication in general.
Post a Comment