On Efficient Person-to-Person Communication
Barry Kort
A great deal of communication between people is meaningless at the time it is communicated. That is, the recipient is at a loss to know what to do in response to a given communication. Mostly, people exchange pieces of information which they feel may be important (or at least interesting) for the other to be aware of. But it seems to me that much of the time it is not clear to either party whether the information is understood or appreciated. By understood, I mean that the recipient is able to use to information as intended to alter their future behavior. In some cases, the recipient truly understands, and voluntarily chooses to alter their behavior in the desired direction. In other cases, the recipient may comply without knowing why the request was made. In all cases, I firmly believe that a request would (and should) be complied with if both parties can come to an understanding of why the proposed course of action is in their mutual self-interests. That is, the only valid reason for making a request is because the requesting party firmly believes that compliance with the request serves both party’s interests.
Sensory inputs come in continuously through multiple channels (vision, audition, olfaction, touch). These inputs convey raw information about our environment (something’s out there — I can see it, hear it, smell it, feel it). These inputs also carry semantic messages encoded via speech, appearance, body language, and body contact. Initially, the brain does not know which sensory inputs are meaningful (signal) and which are irrelevant (noise). Repetition of the signal causes us to notice it and associate it with the presence of the originator of the signal. In Communication Theory, the process of picking a repeating signal out of the background noise of sensory inputs is called Statistical Signal Detection. Even as post-graduate engineers work out the theory and practice of statistical signal detection, animals and infants use it instinctively to tune into the life-protecting channels present in their environment. Over time, we learn the code (language) and begin to respond with original messages of our own. At first the response is simple copying (Da-Da, Ma-Ma, Polly wants a cracker). Later, we learn the code sequences for simple wants and needs (drink-a-wa-wa). Ultimately we become conversant in language.
The speech channel is one of the first and most important to learn. At first only the emotional content of the message is comprehended (LOOK OUT!, NO!, BAD DOG!, SHUT UP!, GET LOST!, DROP DEAD!). Later, the semantic content is appreciated as well, and is eventually substituted for the emotional tone. The visual channel usually comes next, but unlike spoken language, body language is not expressly taught. Body language expresses one’s feelings about what’s going on, but the code is harder to break, as it may vary from one individual to the next. It is curious that we transmit in body language without being aware of it or comprehending its meaning ("there’s yes-yes in your eyes"). Tactile communication includes tickling, punching the other guy’s lights out, and patting on the back.
Since message detection is often mediated through repetition, the sender needs to determine when the message finally sank in. A reliable way is for the recipient to acknowledge receipt (either directly or by altering their behavior in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the message). In conversation, the body language of the listener is the feedback channel (nodding of the head, look of puzzlement, rolling of the eyes).
If the transmitter operates too fast or too slow relative to the rate of the receiver to absorb information, the efficiency of the communication suffers. Portions of the message are lost, or the attention of the listener drifts away. In computer communications, the notion of flow control enables the receiver to start and stop the transmitter, to keep the rate of information transfer from exceeding the capacity of the receiver.
The learning process can be fun, and when it is, we are highly motivated to engage in it. Sports and hobbies typify enjoyable learning experiences, and we don’t want to delegate the activity to anyone else (especially a parent or sibling). But when we get stuck and seek help, the helper can easily go too far, thereby robbing us of the chance to discover on our own. The helper must give just enough hints to get us past the obstacle, but not so much to escort us through the part where we can do it on our own.
When the semantic content of communication incorporates vocabulary or concepts beyond the grasp of the listener, very little communication takes place, and the listener may feel intimidated. (I call this the William F. Buckley syndrome. I would have been terrified to carry on a conversation with him. I would not have had the courage to admit that I didn’t understand what he was talking about.) It is sometimes difficult for a speaker to know when this is happening, but the lack of good questions is a tipoff. Incidentally, a rapid-fire stream of emotional messages can be just as intimidating as a rapid-fire stream of ideational material. If I cannot parse the messages and interpret the meaning in real time, I am obliged to memorize it for later analysis. Since I have a poor memory for speech, this is extremely taxing.
To summarize, both the talker and the listener have an obligation to establish a feedback channel for maintaining synchrony, so that neither the sender nor the receiver has to buffer portions of the message. Since communication works best when it is balanced, each party should be receiving and sending roughly equal amounts. This does not mean that both parties must use equal time on all channels. In a lecture-mode discussion, the speaker wants to learn how to communicate his ideas most efficiently to his audience, so he doesn’t waste his time or theirs. The feedback channel, which could be body language plus questions, informs the speaker whether he is on course, and what course correction is required to maintain synchrony. If the speaker has gaps in his information or reasoning, his audience should detect such flaws and raise questions or counter points. A wise speaker will use the feedback to pinpoint and remedy the bugs in his own ideational concepts, reasoning, and expository style.