Epiphany

[flwyd]

Communication requires both parties to agree in advance about the basic constituents. Once basic communication has been established, more complex messages can be constructed.

Thus, when two people know each other well, they can communicate quite subtly. But when you'd like to send the message "I'd like to get to know you," doing so subtly assumes a shared communications protocol that hasn't been established. It's like trying to send your username before you establish an ssh connection. The message will not be understood and summarily dropped on the floor.

Comments

[altamira16.livejournal.com]

Wow, this is the dorkiest social epiphany ever. I mean that in a good way though.

*applauds*

[glurble.livejournal.com]

hahah.. that rocks.

[neverireven.livejournal.com]

I like that. I think we're all trained - with varying degrees of success - to internalize communication norms in such a way that we assume they should be, both to ourselves and others, intuitive. However, this is a problem when there's a communication disconnect and we're left standing around going, "Why did that happen??" or even worse, "I'm so pissed off that that happened. Why on earth would they XYZ??" when in fact, they were trying to YZW, and we just interpreted it wrong because we had the wrong decoding system...

Um, anyway, I think the point I'm trying to get at is that...I think it's an awesomely helpful tool, for all sorts of relationships (or potential relationships), to be able to unearth the sorts of complex structures that make up our communication and think about them explicitly, rather than trying to deal with them on an almost entirely intuitive level.

also, it's just fun to think about. *g*

[slyviolet.livejournal.com]

I didn't understand a word of what you just said.


...


Haha! GOTCHA! Um actually I fully agree. Especially since I personally am a really intuitive person, and usually go with my feelings about things rather than look at them analytically. I also tend to get affected by others' actions and words really easily because I am constantly picking up on teeny tiny radar signals that they might not even be giving off intentionally. So when I get to know someone really well, we barely need to speak, but when I am around someone who unconsciously puts off lots of little red herring signals and stuff, it really throws me off and I end up getting insulted or hurt or sometimes just confused or misled. So, I think for me at least, its not that the message gets dropped on the floor, it gets fully received but garbled unless I know the person well enough to be able to understand it.

[flwyd.livejournal.com]

I also tend to get affected by others' actions and words really easily because I am constantly picking up on teeny tiny radar signals that they might not even be giving off intentionally.

*cough*
Um.
*stares at shooes*
Yeah.

Cue Moldy Peaches - "Nothing Came Out"

[slyviolet.livejournal.com]

*hugs*

I guess I should amend that quote with "...and in fact might not actually be putting off at all, and I am just inventing a new subtext that wasn't there to begin with."

I wish I had known, Jellybean... I wish we had both been clever enough to think to clarify. *hugs again*

[malakim-angel.livejournal.com]

This could tie in with using E-Prime... English without the "to be" verb is pretty interesting since it forces you out of the patterns we tend to get comfortable (and inflexible) with.

Yes!

[(Anonymous)]

Hi! Author, I'll just agree with you.
And just cool design, interesting site name flwyd.livejournal.com :), I see you you're are not newbe. Don't stop the nice job!