Cybercontextualism:
New Rules for Communication, Learning, and Organizations in the Information Era
Cybercontexts: New Rules for Communication, Learning, and Organizations in the
Information Era
I.
Human Communication in the Twenty-first Century
A. The Exchange Fallacy
B. The Archetypal Web and the Spider of Language
C. Figurative Fugues and Metaphoric Memories
D. The "End" of Linearism
E. Cybercontextualism
II. New ways to learn: Start-dot-star that to your brain drive
A. Diversity: Multi-Tasking Thoughts and Platforms
B. Faster Processing: Mental Megahertzing
C. Technical Literacy, not technical literalism
D. Ecology applied universally-Gregory Bateson as Patron Saint
E. Horizontal Structures: Blowin' Down Houses of Cards
F. Tolerance of Ambiguity: Rockin' Aristotle's World
G. Process: Moving into Motion Pictures and Away From Snapshots
H. Change Tolerance: Snakes Shedding Skins on Steroids
I. Analogical Thinking, Creativity, and the New Wunderkind
J. The Self as a Library (Including Fiction and Non Fiction Sections)
III. A Twenty-first Century Rhetorical Primer
A. How to Talk About Technology
B. Persuasion2
C. Self Persuasion: The Karmic Boomerang
IV. The Invisible Fist:
Organizations and Capitalism in a New Economy
V. The Future of Advertising: Influencing the Uninfluenceable
VI.Culture Equals Contexts3 (What is Hip Revisited)
VII. Interviews
VIII. Glossary
Chapter One
Human Communication in the Twenty-first Century
Language is a Virus from Outerspace.
William S. Burroughs
As we move into the next century, the rate of change we experience on a
daily basis continues to accelerate unlike any other time before. One of my
favorite professors, the late Dr. Dean Barnlund, liked to say that for years we
were taught to revere our elders. They were the depositories of wisdom, the ones
to turn to as the problems of existence manifested themselves in our lives. Our
culture has evolved so fast the opposite is now true: one needs to look to the
generations ahead to see what is going on. Nowhere is this more evident than in
the fields of communication, media, and technology.
The worship of youth took on new meaning beginning in the '60s. People
saw the old ways were not working. A hunger pervaded the atmosphere for new,
fresh approaches. Approaches that could best be created by those who were open
to new ideas--a role best suited for the young. The very things the young were
condemned for turned out to be their greatest strengths. The innocence, the
flexibility, the willingness to try new experiences instead of drumming on with
the tried and true--these values allow an entire species to regenerate itself.
Does this mean the young should ignore the old? Not at all. This book does
not seek to widen generation gaps. Each generation is sandwiched between all
that came before and all that will come after. There is much to learn from both
directions. However, this book is about newness: about taking a new look at the
subject of communication in this age of ours. A time when information has become
a "commodity," a driver of forces within our economy and our personal lives. To
deal with this explosion of information requires new skills; more than skills,
it demands a change of viewpoint, a broader perspective than ever before. Not
only must we process information faster, we must process it more intelligently.
We need to aspire to a higher level of intelligence. If we are to survive, we
must evolve to become genuine independent thinkers and problem solvers.
The way we will accomplish this is through communication. That is what
this book is about: changing the ways we communicate. Communication has always
been and will always be the most fundamental activity we engage in. How we go
about it will determine our future.
1
Cybercontexualism \(si-ber-kan-tekst-je-we-li-zem)\n [Greek kybernetes pilot,
governor (fr. kybernan to steer, govern) + contextual (ME weaving together of
words, L contextus connection of words, fr contexere to weave together ] 1. The
study of interrelated conditions in relation to goals. Meaning as the
combination of content plus context.
Cyber refers to Cybernetics, which Webster's defines as "the science of
communication and control theory." Cybernetics is, in essence, relatively simple
although it lends itself to higher mathematics when approached from an
engineering standpoint (which indeed it originally was. I have coined the word
"Cybercontextualism" to incorporate two fundamental aspects of communication
that make most sense when studied together; namely that of Cybernetics and that
of the concept of studying communication in terms of the context in which it
takes place.
The word "Cybernetics," was coined by Norbert Wiener, an MIT scientist who
studied feedback in machines. During WW II, he developed an anti-aircraft firing
system that would adjust itself based on the feedback received concerning the
moving target. He was trying to design machines that could "think." All of us
who played "kickball" as children know that it is one thing to throw a ball to
someone who is stationary, and quite another to throw a ball to someone who is
moving. Wiener was trying to develop machines that could solve this "moving
target problem" or what we might call the "quarterback problem": how to hit a
moving target.
Cybernetics is the study of relationships as opposed to the
study of "things in themselves." Its purpose is to highlight interelationships.
It focuses on the interconnectivity and interdependence in living systems. It's
concern is with process rather than parts; context rather than content;
interaction rather than isolation.
The approach looks to the broader rather than narrower view. One can learn
about a plant by dissecting it into smaller and smaller pieces, but one can also
learn by examining the relationships of the plant. How it reacts to air, to
soil, to sunlight, to the foodchain--the relationship to the bigger picture.
The idea behind Cybernetics is revealed in the definitions of three terms:
SENSOR, COMPARATOR, and ACTIVATOR. If you are engaged in shooting a bow and
arrow at a target, you must first stop and SENSE the situation. You must engage
your perceptive abilities to the task at hand. Not only must you see the target,
the situation dictates that you see the tip of your arrow in relation to your
target. Necessity also requires a sensory awareness of how much pressure is
necessary to pull back the arrow to the required position.
To aim accurately, you must continually COMPARE where your arrow is lined
up to an ideal position of how it should be lined up. As you aim at your target,
you undergo a small dance of adjustment: "Okay, a little more to the left, now a
little more to the right. Now, I'm right on target." Each little movement, each
adjustment requires that you go through the complete cybernetic process.
You sense, compare, and act--over and over again until you are satisfied you
have arrived at an agreement between desire and destination.
You start a new cybernetic cycle as you release the arrow. You SENSE the
target and the position of the arrow as it hits its mark. You stop and COMPARE
the location of the arrow with your intended destination (Did you hit the
bullseye?). You then ACT accordingly by shooting another arrow until you
eventually reach your goal.
The cycle of cybernetics is in play continually in all our actions. Every
microscopic movement we make involves the three steps of SENSE, COMPARE, and
ACT.
Problems in control usually revolve around a failure to COMPARE the
existing situation to the goal. Imagine a ship lost in the ocean without a
compass or stars by which to navigate. The captain is forced to simply ACT,
without the benefit of sensory data with which to compare. The ship could just
as well float randomly.
The key is to have something accurate with which to make a comparison.
There needs to be an accurate map or compass. If that which is used to make the
comparisons is indeed accurate, the captain can eventually navigate to the
destination through a continous cybernetic process. Going off course is not a
problem as long as the captain is continually making the adjustments. Slight
deviations are normal and correctable. After all, there's no such thing as a
truly straight line in nature.
Mistakes come about from using faulty comparators. If the map is wrong, we
will not show up at our intended destination. Faulty comparators usually are
discovered (eventually) for what they are, but the price paid is often dear. If
someone reversed the polarity on your compass, you would begin your voyage by
going 180 degrees off course. Luckily, our sensors are able to make other
comparisons (we believe we are going south, but we notice it's getting colder by
the day) which tell us we may be operating under a faulty comparator. This
ability--to perceive similar relationships and comparisons--is what makes us
different from machines. A machine would continue making the mistake of
following its programmed algorythm until someone gave it new directions. Human
beings are independently able to "see the bigger picture" and make the necessary
adjustments to put themselves back on track.This is one way we could define
intelligence:
Intelligence is the ability to abandon that which isn't working (faulty
comparators) by perceiving the larger context of the situation.
"My compass indicates I'm going south, and yet I just saw two polar bears, an
eskimo, and a little round man with a long white beard all waving to me from the
shore. Maybe I have a broken compass."
This captain perceives the existing situation and compares it to the
intended destination: the south. The intelligent captain makes the connection to
the larger picture, whereas the "unintelligent" captain keeps going while
muttering, "This compass is going to come through for me. I paid good money for
it."
Our every day, traditional ideas of reality are delusions which we spend
substantial parts of our daily lives shoring up, even at considerable risk of
trying to force fit facts to fit our definition of reality instead of vice
versa.
Paul Watzlawick
We tend to ignore evidence--even distort it--to make it conform to our
preconfigured notions about realilty. To greet the facts face on, to accept new
evidence as it appears--this is what encompasses intelligence.
Intelligence has layers. It's one thing to know the rules of a game, it's
quite another to know that it is a game. We all know how to "kid" with someone,
but how do we know when someone's kidding? When someone pulls a joke on us,
there is always that split second when we make the transfer--when we quickly
make the jump to look at the situation from the outside in instead of from the
inside out--where we see that what just occured has to be evaluated from a
different perspective. This is a different type of thinking.
Intelligence is not just following directions; it's knowing how to ascertain the
validity of the directions themselves.
In other words the intelligent person not only uses comparators correctly,
he or she can also check up on the comparators themselves and establish whether
or not they are serving their intended purpose.
So we see that whatever we do, from sewing on buttons to sewing wild oats;
from singing in tune to tuning in a song on the radio: all require the three
basic steps of cybernetics. Next, we will examine the role of "context" in
communication.
Without context, words and actions have no meaning at all. This is true not only
of all communication whatsover, of all mental processes, of all mind, including
that which tells the sea anemone how to grow and the amoeba what he should do
next.
Gregory Bateson
Every act takes place within a situation. Every piece of text takes place
within a larger "context." Every student learns that to understand the meaning
of a word, you must see the context in which it takes place. The same rule
applies to actions within situations. To reach a conclusion, or make a judgment
about an act requires that we examine the action and the situation. Meaning is a
"system" that only makes sense by seeing the whole picture, and true
understanding only comes about by perceiving a given action as it relates to a
given situation. Meaning is created by the relationships between things, not by
the things themselves.
Text plus context equals meaning. Understanding is the conceptual coordination
between text and context.
The act of yelling is not, in itself good or bad. Any evaluation of an act
depends on the context or situation. Are you yelling at football game or yelling
at your spouse? Saying, "you need help," is "good" when you are speaking with
someone holding two bags of groceries. It takes on an entirely new meaning when
you say it to someone who just asked, "Am I attractive?"
Many arguments can be traced to mistaken contexts between the two basic
contexts of "friend or foe." It comes down to the relationship between the two
communicators. When communication is viewed and interpreted within the framework
of friendship, almost anything can be said. The meaning becomes secondary.
Conversation takes the role of "relationship maintenance." Friends talk and talk
with the continous underlying subtext that says we like each other. It's not the
content of the messages between friends that is important; on the contrary, the
closer two people are the less likely any outsiders will be able to follow what
two close friends are saying. The more you know someone, the more likely you are
to babble away in your own language. Communication between friends becomes
conversation for conversation's sake. The important thing is the link between
you; the messages that pass back and forth are of secondary importance. If you
don't believe this, try tape recording a typical conversation between you and a
close friend and then transcribe it on paper and try reading it objectively.
Deborah Tannen has discussed her findings that in relationships, women
consider the relationship to be healthy if the relationship itself is being
discussed frequently, whereas men may feel just the opposite. Without at this
point delving into a discussion of gender differences in communication, let us
for a moment accept this premise that relationships need communication, any type
of communication, in order to thrive.
The opposite becomes true when two people communicate within the context
of being enemies. All promises become suspect, all assertions become threats.
Messages are viewed through a veil of suspicion. "She said she wants to work
things out. What she really means is she wants things to go her way." "He is
acting nice, he must want me to do him a favor." The orginal context defines the
communication (content) that will follow.
Gregory Bateson has discussed at length the phenomenon of play in animals.
For example, how does a dog know when another dog wants to just play or actually
fight? Playing and fighting look alike but they have opposite meanings. A dog
can't say, "Look I'm going to bite your leg, but I'm not going to bite it hard
enough to hurt you." This is quite complicated. The animal needs to somehow
communicate by allowing the other animal to bite first so that the animal will
see that the context of biting is one of play. The logic becomes something like:
"Here, I'm going to let you bite me so you will see that we are not enemies
because no enemy would allow you to bite first."
Fighting and playing are just like insults and teasing. The messages are
the same but the meanings are different. Again, the problem is one of
establishing the appropriate context of the situation. The content of the
messages themselves play a secondary role.
If we remove the emphasis on messages from our study of communication,
what is left? Partly, what is left is the nonverbal aspects of communication.
The facial expressions, gestures, movements and so on. I am reminded of the
story a new inmate who was trying to fit in with his cellmates. The cellmates
had been together in the same cell for so long and had told the same jokes
together so many times, they all knew the jokes by number. All a cellmate had to
do was to say outloud, "number 8," and the entire group exploded into hilarious
laughter. It would go on like this night after night; someone in the corner
would yell out "number 4" after the laugher died down someone else would burst
out laughing and screech, "number 9." Well, the new guy one evening felt that he
had the hang of it by now, he stood up from his cot and said outloud proudly,
"number 3." The room was silent. His grin slowly turned to a frown upon the
realization that no one thought he was funny. One of the prisoners smiled and
turned to him and said: "Not everyone can tell a joke, you know. It's how you
say it."
If meaning can only be interpreted in terms of text and context together
how do we define isolated text? If actions can only be evaluated in terms of
their situations, how can individual acts be judged? The answer is that they can
only be defined in terms of all possible contexts and situations. In the same
way a word can only be defined in the dictionary by examining each definition,
individiual actions must also be evaluated contextually. Even the act of murder
is subject to opposite meanings (self defence versus murder) dependent on the
context in which the act was carried out. You can only evaluate an act by
describing the context (or situation ) in which it was performed. Sex and rape
are the same acts carried out within different contexts. Eating when hungry is
healthy. Eating when full is defined as gluttony.
Now, we have determined that meaning requires both an understanding of an
action and the situation. In examining cybernetics, we saw that to arrive at the
successful completion of a goal, one must sense the situation, compare the
context to what it "should" be, and then act on it.
Cybercontextualism
Cybercontextualism is the act of moving forward toward the attainment of a
goal by continually examining the current situation. As new evidence appears,
the situation is re-evaluated. Action only takes place in light of the state of
current affairs. What situation am I in? What situation do I want to be in?
What act will move me from the context of where I am at currently to where I
want to be? You see, every time you act, your situation changes. The problem is
that we keep on acting without stopping to notice that the situation is
different. It's like the blind track runner who doesn't realize she just won the
race.
Cybercontextualism means giving up the buying of suits from clothing
emporiums, and in their place hiring a tailor to custom make your clothing. One
size fits all doesn't fit anymore. It's the application of the aphorism,
"measure twice, cut once" to life itself.
The only person who behaves sensibly is my tailor. He makes new measurements
every time he sees me. All the rest go with the old measurements.
George Bernard Shaw
As mentioned earlier, we make mistakes when we have faultly comparators.
This is really what cybercontextualism is about: comparing our comparisons. Are
our maps accurate? Is our compass working? These are cybercontextual questions
because they force us to examine the larger context: the bigger picture.
All this sounds easy enough, but there is a major problem: contextual
overlap. What happens when one context is confused for another? For example,
the police officer who accidientally shoots a child for waiving a squirt gun.
The officer mistakenly believed it was a "kill or be killed" situation. All
signals said go. The officer sensed, compared, and acted. The officer overlapped
two completely different contexts.
All mistakes are mistaken contextual evaluations. "I thought the stove was
off,"; " Oops.I didn't realize someone was in the bathroom,"; "I didn't realize
I needed to study to pass the class!" We overlap contexts continually through no
fault of our own. Luckily, we can usually recover quickly from our mistakes and
carry on.
There are individuals, however, who fail to distinguish contextual
overlap. Their "wiring" is set in reverse permanently, so to speak. Perhaps the
serial killer "sees" each victim as an enemy. They may believe they are
commiting an act of "self defence" each time they commit the act of murder. They
don't see the overlap, but those around them do.
Maybe you've known someone who doesn't understand humor. They take
everything literally. Some people need everything spelled out. They can take
directions, but they can't take a joke. They can read the lines but not between
them. They are lacking the ability to see "the bigger picture." Everything is
black or white, right or wrong, good or bad. They never say, "it depends." They
are not able to deal with multiple contexts. They can't see a problem from the
inside out and then take a step back and look at it from the outside in. When
they make mistakes, they don't see them as mistakes. Their contextual world is
so fixed, there is only one context: the context as they see things.
How does contextual overlap occur? Imagine what would happen if a child
were alternately rewarded and punished for speaking. At home the child is told,
"children should be seen and not heard." At school the child is chided for
keeping silent and praised for volunteering answers. Hopefully a child can
adjust to the situations. He or she realizes that in certain contexts it's good
to speak out, in other contexts it pays to keep quiet. Hopefully , the child
applies a "cybercontextual" approach to the situation.
But what, if under macabre circumtances, the praise and punishment for
speaking out were completely random? What if the child loses the ability to
predict praise for speaking out? It becomes a gamble: sometimes the child is
told to shut up, other times the child is lavishly rewarded. Eventually the
meaning of speech might become "fused" so that the child really has no means of
predicting which contexts are acceptable and which are not for the act of
speech. The child with the punishment/reward confusion eventually overlaps both
contexts and "glues" them together in an Orwellian manner: good becomes bad,
right becomes wrong. The end result is a withdrawing from the act of speech
altogether.
This is what Gregory Bateson called the double bind: the mixed messages
problem. If someone gives you mixed messages for a long enough time, you will
experience contextual overlap and will not be able to understand why you do what
you do. Mixed messages break down our ability to distinguish the appropriateness
of any act.
Another example of contextual overlap is the experience of loss. A loss is
a sudden collapsing of contexts. When someone you know dies or leaves, your
context changes immediately. The shift is sudden and unexpected. The roof
literally caves in on you. You find yourself in a new context, not of your own
choosing. The problem is that you still act as if you were in the old context.
When contexts change that swiftly, you are left in a sort of "jet lag." Your
body has not caught up to the "time change." You are forced to change the way
you act because the old ways no longer match up with your situation. The only
answer is to change your actions to appropriately match the new environment. One
of the reasons a loss is so physically painful is that the body has noticed the
sudden disapearance in its environment and assumes that it too must have
disapeared. After a loss the body needs to be told that it is still there. The
"torn apart" feeling of bereavement comes about because of the identification
with the deparated. When the self has identified with someone or something, its
sudden disapearance is as if a part of the self has been taken away. A physical
massage is a great remedy for loss because touch seems to "inform" the body that
it really is still intact. It helps the body "reset" itself through physical
reassurance.
Just as computers occasionally require resetting (sometimes when all else
fails,we have no choice but to hit that reset button to reboot the system) we
need to reset our own lives as well. Resetting is the simple act putting
yourself back in tune with the natural rhythms of daily life. How do you go
about it? Simply hang around any natural repeating pattern: watch a sunset,
visit the seashore, take a walk in nature. Physical exercise, dance, even
listening to music can all serve the same purpose: they all put you back in tune
with the fundamental resonance of life.
Searching for Meaning in the inexplicable
Cybercontextualism asks the question: what context would or could explain
a particular act? When faced with the inexplicable, one needs to examine all
possible contexts surrounding the act until one is discovered that "justifies"
the act. One must ask, "under what circumstances might this action make sense?"
A good example is found in the activities of gangs. Their close knit dedication
doesn't make sense until you see that these kids are operating under the
conditions of a lack of family. The gang becomes the family. The dedication one
would normally feel for a family are transfered onto a peer group.
This type of "contextual" understanding requires an active use of the
imagination. For what is comparison but the creative capacity to see how one
thing is like another? Benjamin R. Barber once said, "Civility is a work of the
imagination, for it is through the imagination that we render others
sufficiently like ourselves for them to become subjects sufficiently like
ourselves for them to become subjects of tolerance and respect, if not always
affection. Democracy is anything but a "natural" form of association. It is an
extraordinary and rare contrivance of cultivated imagination."
Imagination is more important than knowledge.
Albert Einstein
We PERCEIVE through our perception of differences (a zebra standing in the
middle of a herd of antelope is easy to see); we BELIEVE through our perception
of similarities. Belief requires the engagement of the imagination, and to some
degree, the disengagement of perception. While engaged in communication we are
simultaneously differentiating and identifying, believing and "skepivating." We
continually alternate between accepting things at face value, and critically
probing for particulars. The sheer volume of sensory input from the environment
forces us to make assumptions (again, acts of the imagination), and to utilize
mental thermostats. When you say, "I believe you," what you're really saying
is, "I can use my imagination to probabalistically assume you're telling the
truth because it sounds familiar.
Frequency plays a role in belief. As it turns out, that which we take for
granted as truth is often mainly the comfort of redundancy; the security we
avail ourselves of in our ability to recognize patterns (Alfred North
Whitehead's observation that "understanding is the aperception of patterns as
such").We mistake truth out of mere repetition; our ability to make accurate
predictions fools us into believing that there is inherent truth in those
predictions. Repetition creates an illusion of similarity (when in actual fact
no two things are the same). As something repeats, we fall into the lazy pattern
of saying, "oh, that's just like that last one." We start to "believe," instead
of "perceive." Time fools us into identification: the ultimate outcome of
belief. Once we identify with someone or some idea, we have created the ultimate
merged file--we've opened up one document while in another and then hit the save
button--linking the two forever into one.
You persuade a man only insofar as you can talk his language by speech, gesture,
tonality, order, image, attitude, idea, identifying your ways with his.
Kenneth Burke
Our failure to recognize redundancy is punished (imagine forgetting that
hot stoves can burn). Our cultivation of belief systems and mental thermostats
allows us to experience a much wider range of life. Without making assumptions,
and taking things at face value, we'd be forced to analyze each perception.
Without these perceptive shortcuts (we could call them macros) we would be
forced to live life from "scratch." It would be like having to go out to the
barn each time you wanted a class of milk. Could we even live if we had to do
everything consciously?
Although repetition fosters belief, that which is truly important, the
experience of life itself, never repeats itself. No two things are exactly
alike. All we can do is brace ourselves for the continous unveiling of
experience. At some point we must lay down our swords, our belief systems, and
simply embrace the beast of raw experience head on, savoring both its sweet and
putrid smells.
Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other.
Shakespeare
Contexts within contexts
When we start to examine the subject of contexts we must acknowledge the
difference between macrocontexts and microcontexts. As anyone who has ever
peered inside a microscope knows, the macroscopic (naked eye) view has little in
common with the microscopic. There is a difference between the big picture and
the details. One of the problems we face as communicators is the descrepancy
between these two contexts. We micromanage a situation when we should be
macromanaging it and vice versa.
Contexts nest together in a series of concentric circles. Let's take the
context of my wanting to aquire more wealth. My desire (or my goal) is to
accumulate more money which is, of course, a context or situation nested within
the slightly larger context of my wanting to better my overall situation in
life. More comfort, a nicer car, apartment, clothes, and so on. My financial
situation is just part of a bigger context: that of my overall family. It
doesn't stop there. I'm still a part of society, which in turn is part of the
entire species. Now let's look at what happens to my goal as it relates to this
series of contexts. My goal will maintain harmony within the contextual layers
up to a certain point. In other words it approaches a limit and eventually
becomes meaningless or reverses itself. My goal to accumulate wealth has meaning
in the context of my personal life, the life of my family, and to some degree
the life of society. But then the goal starts to take on a different meaning. In
the larger context of the species my goal to accumulate wealth can even take on
a negative aspect because my personal accumulation of wealth (because of the
scarce nature of resources) eventually deprives others of benefits. It all
depends on how global my perspective is. I'm not trying to inject moralism
here; all I'm saying is the positive aspects of my goal are simply an evaluation
completely dependent on the viewpoint I hold. If I start looking at all children
as part of my "family" I will start to have a problem because obviously if If I
have 100 children to feed, I can't let one feast on a Thanksgiving dinner while
the rest nibble on bread crumbs. Again, it is all a matter of viewpoint. Am I
looking at wealth from the inside out, or the outside in?
The whole concept of value is utterly context dependent. One cannot even
discuss the relative merits of an act without clearly defining the context
within which the act takes place while simultaneously defining the larger
contexts that make up the bigger picture. This contextual myopia keeps one
focused on the short term while ignoring the long term consequences.
Contextual myopia can eventually lead to a contextual crises: the point at
which the values in one context severly conflict with the values of one of the
larger layers of context. For example, let us say you have immigrated into a
deserted part of the world. One of the reasons you moved is that you're peace
loving and you wish to escape all of the violence and insanity of modern day
civilization. You live hundreds of miles away from any police protection. You
build a house from the ground up. You're happy. You have a little family: a
beautiful wife, daughter, and son. You've planted a productive garden. You could
say you've found paradise. Then one day a few rough looking guys with automatic
weapons march in for a little visit. They like your place. They don't physically
threaten you; instead they announce their desire to camp out along with you
indefinately. They could have gone anywhere else in the world--there's nothing
but open space for miles around, but they've decided to set up camp right next
to you. You know that you have no recourse to any police authority or
protection. They know it, and they know that you know it. You now have trouble
sleeping. You can't leave your family alone for even a few minutes. You can't
leave anything out in the open for fear of theft. In short, your life becomes
miserable overnight.
The entire context or situation has changed. Your life and family are in
danger although no actual threats or aggressive acts have occurred. You are
starting to suffer greatly because of the looming threat to your lifestyle. You
know what could happen, and to make the situation even more complicated--there's
no one to protect you except yourself. The question becomes: how are you going
to protect your family? If you tell them to leave, they will use their superior
strength to subdue you. You start to believe that sooner or later they will take
over your house and most likely murder you and your family. Your calm peace
loving nature has been replaced with the desire to rid yourself of an enemy.
After weeks of torture, one evening you crawl into the gunmen's tent and
quietly slit their throats. Afterwards you burn the tent along with any evidence
of their visit. You know no one will ever miss them. You go back to bed and
sleep through the night for the first time in weeks.
The question becomes: did you do the right thing? This is an extremely
complicated ethical question deeply layered in a series of contexts. Is it right
to kill your neighbor? Most would say definately not. Is it acceptable to kill
in self defence? Most would argue that if it were truly a "kill or be killed"
situation--yes. Was this a matter of of self defence or murder? Were you
threatened? Not directly, but the mere presence of automatic weapons could be
construed as a threat. The possession of a weapon in an area without legal
supervision--such as in the original days of the wild west for example--is a
different context. People will act differently if they know they can't be
caught. The ultimate answer to the question of whether or not you have done the
right thing is the answer to the question, "did you survive?"
If you know you won't get caught, you are in a much different context than
one in which you might get caught. We tend to think that the rules are the rules
for everyone, but if you are the one creating the rules, you are automatically
in a different context. It's for this reason that those in power are so easily
corrupted. Those who are making the laws have much less to fear.
Let's look at another example: the introduction of the mafia into the
United States. Here we have a group of new immigrants from Italy. They come into
a country where they are essentially unwelcome--as is usually the case with new
immigrants. They gradually discover that they are not protected by the law. The
police essentially ignore them. One or two criminals start to feed off the
population. Eventually even the most nonviolent can no longer take the abuse and
they attempt to take matters into their own hands. Violence breaks out. Which
leads to more violence and retribution among the families themselves. Without
supervision from the larger context of a criminal justice authority, the
escalation of power among families leads to greater and greater abuses.
There's a scene in the movie Good Fellas in which the narrator says "All
they got from Pauli (the local mafia chief) was protection from other guys
looking to rip them off. That's it. That's what it's all about. That's what the
FBI could never understand. That what Pauli and the organization does is offer
protection for people who can't go to the cops. That's it. That's all it is.
They're like the police department for wiseguys." You can imagine a poor
immigrant opens up a meager shop. As soon as a little prosperity arrives,
someone tries to take it away. The police won't be bothered, so he pays for
protection from a rival gang. This sets up a chain of obligations which
obfusgate any sense of right or wrong. Eventually a postitive feedback loop
(behaviors which are rewarded are repeated and amplified) enters into the
picture and the whole thing escalates out of control. The whole idea of "the
code of silence" is entirely contextual: Each person knows it's wrong to steal,
but they know that in the larger context, the act of informing will result in
severe punishment and maybe death. What makes it even more complicated still is
that there are at least two other layers of context beyond. There is the
question of what's good for the entire ethnic group as a whole (one member of
the group informing on another is bad for the group as a whole. What if the
brother of the guy you are turning in is your brother-in-law?) Surrounding all
of this is the big picture: the macrocontext which states the question, "if
everyone stole and no one said anything, what would happen to society?"
The code of silence dilemna is an agonizing example of contextual crisis
because what right and wrong changes as you expand into each larger contextual
layer. The result is that keeping silent is both right and wrong at the same
time. This is the anatomy of doubt: the inevitable value conflicts between the
layers of contexts. The final results can be a fusion of contexts (as we saw
with mixed messages) which leads to a form of madness.
The positive and negative charges associated with the different layers
give the problem an "electronic" sense: there is an electrophysiology to the
combined effects of positve and negative relationships. (relate to Freud see the
general semantics book)
Technology makes this whole problem much more complicated. We've been
talking about human nature in the absence of authority, but what about the
opposite? What if the authority is omnipresenent? For example, in many states
it is against the law to drive a car more than 55 miles per hour. The
enforcement of the law is extremely selective. You could break the law a
thousand times and never get caught. Most people break this law. It was as if
the law didn't exist. However, every day someone somewhere is pulled over by the
police and ticketed for breaking the law: the law that everyone knows about and
never obeys. Of course it was upsetting to get caught, but how could anyone
truly complain--for they knew that they broke the law. The epitomy of
inefficiency.
In comes computer technology. Imagine that every car is implanted with a
chip that registers each time the car goes over 55 miles an hour. The chip can
even tell the difference between a quick speed violation (necessary and legal in
some cases--passing another car for example) and a prologed violation. The chip
records every instance in which the car goes past 55 miles per hour for over a
period of two minutes. Overnight everything changes. If you go over 55, you will
be caught. It's that simple. There's no way around it.
This could be called "contextual reformatting." The entire situation has
changed. It is a new state of affairs brought on by the revolution in
technology: you can no longer do those things which you were never supposed to
do. You can no longer "get away" with anything. This presents an interesting and
difficult argument, for how does one argue against efficiency? We agree to
uphold the law. We agree (in the sense of the majority) that the speed limit
should be set at 55, and we agree that it is against the law to violate the
speed limit. We know that if we violate the law, we are subject to law
enforcement action. So why do we complain if computers provide a means of total
enforcement? We cannot accept it because it is too efficient; which translates
to too much control by the authorities.
I would like to present an argument for inefficiency. First of all let me
start off by saying that efficiency is and must be thought of in a contextual
framework. In other words given a certain context or situation, we have a range
of possible efficiency levels from pure inefficiency to maximum efficiency. We
can also regard efficiency in terms of waste: at the low end of the efficiency
scale we have maximum waste of resources and minimum production; at the high end
of the scale we have minimal waste and maximum production. Here is an example: a
small town decided to use city funds to purchase a book store instead of funding
its library. The argument was made that the library dollars were not bringing a
return on the investment. It was further argued that money invested into a
bookstore would establish a fifteen percent return on investment after two years
and would provide five full time jobs--jobs that would be funded through profits
generated by the store itself. Over a ten year period, the bookstore would
generate close to a million dollars in revenue--badly needed revenue in a town
already in the red because of budget deficiencies. In the narrower context, the
book store was obviously a more efficient use of tax payer dollars, but it was
the wrong decision brought about my contextual myopia. What the city managers
could not see was that the idea of the library itself was of more value to the
city than the profits generated from the bookstore because the library meant
that information was equally available to all citizens. What they could not see
was the one poor child who would one day rise up to be a leader because of
knowledge obtained for free from the public library. What they could not see
were the effects of knowledge from books read by people who would not or could
not purchase them in a bookstore. What they could not see were the long term
effects of other cities and towns doing the same thing and gradually wiping out
the entire library system thereby eliminating a means by which knowledge could
be shared by all. The long term effects could include not only the switching
over of book reading to the affluent, but the continued proliferation of books
written only in order to make a profit. The only types of books published would
be books that would easily sell: smaller words and smaller ideas. What the city
managers did not see was that the foundation of democracy itself depends on
equal access to information.
The film The Man in the White Suit with Alec Guiness echoed a similar
theme. The story is about a lab scientist at a textile firm who figured out a
way to create a fabric that never needed cleaning. Any clothing made from this
fabric stayed clean and shiney new forever. At first everyone was ecstatic. He
was a hero and suddenly became famous. Unfortunately, it didn't take long before
the garment and soap industries realized this product was going to put them out
of business. Overnight he became persona non grata and was chased out of town.
His efficiency rattled the contextual scheme of the economy. What appeared to be
a great discovery from his viewpoint, was a disaster in the eyes of the larger
context of which he was a part.
This film is an interesting allegory about what could happen to our
"information" economy.
We are supposedly in an information economy, but what does that really
mean? Information is not like any other resource in the traditional sense. What
is information anyway?
Information is a difference that makes a difference.
Gregory Bateson
Information is to data as a Swiss bank account number is to a string of
random numbers. The financial pages from the business section represent data, if
an inside trader hands them to you with one company circled in red and winks at
you and says, "My money's on this baby." Then you've got information: a
difference that makes a difference.
Resources have always been thought of in connection with scarcity.
Minerals, for example, are a finite resource. We have renewable resources like
wood, but there is still a certain scarcity associated with timber because of
the nature of the environment. Information is not like any other resource
because it truly is infinite. Each person who "passes" it on still keeps it.
Imagine if cars were like software. You could make a back up copy to keep in
your garage in case you developed engine trouble. It would be illegal to sell
copies, but who would know if you gave a copy to your best friend? If you had a
big enough garage, you could make seven copies of your Lexus (the one your
brother-in-law copied for you), one for each day of the week. You could even
keep the original stored away and make a copy of it each month, delete the old
version, and guarantee your car would never run down. You would never need to
buy a car again. Wouldn't that be efficient? How would he auto industry respond
if such a thing were possible? This is what we're up against in an information
economy.
At some point efficiency extinguishes its users. Unless of course they
evolve. It appears that information (like all resources) has a point of
diminishing returns. Imagine if software for legal applications became so easy
to use, so comprehensive, so "artificially intelligent," that anyone could use
it. The software could evolve to the point that for less that fifty dollars you
could buy a CD ROM that was better than the best lawyer available. It might even
be better than hiring an entire firm of lawyers. If the software evolved to that
point, what would happen to the legal industry? Well, for one thing entire books
of lawyer jokes would be forgotten because the entire legal industry would
unravel. They would "self destruct." This is what is happening to large segments
of our economy today.
For now we don't have to worry about automobiles and lawyers becoming so
efficient they disapear. However, with information we have a present day problem
that could become much worse. "Information yearns to be free," has been the
battle cry of the Internet community. The software industry, however, looks at
it from the opposite viewpoint. It is ironic that their product: information, a
product that is becoming the center of the economy, is so unlike anything that
could be considered a commercial product at all. Wisdom has always been
available to those who had the discipline to master it--until now. In the past,
we have had knowledge workers: doctors, lawyers, professors; but their
livelyhoods were based economically on one simple premise: the average person
was ignorant of their profession. Knowledge becomes valuable in monetary terms
only when there is a scarcity. You pay for advice because you lack the knowledge
yourself.
Because information has so much in common with thought, the only way to
truly control information is by using the principles of thought control and
propaganda. This is the greatest danger we face as we enter into this era. All
wars have always been fought over the fundamental struggle arising out of the
scarcity of natural resources--a scarcity that has always been natural. There is
only so much oil, so much gold, so much land. But as information becomes the
chief resource, a resource which is fundamentally infinite, limited only by
individual ignorance, we face an entirely new set of challenges. There will be
those who attempt to maintain scarcity artificially, those who maintain their
position by keeping valuable information in the realm of the elite, by
increasing the gap between the information haves and have nots. One shudders to
think of the type of wars that could exist in the future as the powers that be
attempt to maintain their influence.
If we ever achieved world peace, would anyone cry over the loss of job
security for generals? The problem, and there is a huge problem here, is that
although information has a natural propensity to bounteously spread itself out
evenly among people, power does not. People grab, keep, and hoard power.
This link between power and information is where democracy comes into
play. Unless we manage the information age in a democratic setting, we could
find ourselves governed by a tyranny that would make all earlier fascistic forms
of government seem about as threatening as the local school board. Information
seems to head toward efficiency, but democracy does not. Democracy--luckily for
us--is anything but efficient. You know the old saying, "if you have a busy job
to do, give it to a busy dictator." Tyranical despots are normally "can-do"
guys. It's true. They get the job done pronto. And it's a funny thing to see how
efficient workers can be under the right "dictator incentive plans": torture,
firing squads, life long prison sentences. Despots don't waste a lot of money
hiring motivational speakers to get their people to produce. Democracy, with all
its checks and balances, invites inefficiency in the short term to guarantee
long term survival of the many.
There are three basic approaches for dealing with contextual crises:
TOP DOWN : One acts from the point of view of the larger context. This is more
of a global approach in which the needs of the individual are sacrificed for the
needs of the group. It can be summed up as: "I will eat less so that everyone
can eat."
BOTTOM UP: The opposite point of view. It is the "me generation," approach of
satisfying personal needs above all else: a completely short term method of
solving problems. "Eat while you can," summarizes this method.
THREE MUSKATEERISM: Recognizes the mutual interdependence of group members. The
slogan "all for one and one for all" summarizes how it works.
Both top down and bottom up approaches fail eventually. If you always eat
less so that the group can eat, you would eventually starve if the group got big
enough unless you looked outside for other solutions (eg. increasing
agricultural production). Self sacrifice only goes so far. It's a matter of the
chain and its weakest link. The elimination of all excellence in favor of common
denominatoristic mediocracy as in old style Sovietism with its prevalent
grayism, group think, and monowhatnotism will eventually bring about the demise
of the entire system.
Likewise bottom up (me firstism) can destroy a group through its
shortsightedness. As we have seen so clearly in corporate obsessions with short
term profits: dismantling companies and downsizing for quick returns at the cost
of thousands of layed off workers. Both can fail because they do not take the
interdependence of individuals and groups fully into account.
Three muskateerism recognizes the systemic nature of individuals and
groups. This "life in a lifeboat" approach says, "I must eat enough to function
within the group, and I trust they will see to it that I am well fed. In the
meantime, I will look after their food needs." There is a quid pro quoism at
work: a dualistic trust inherent in the idea of "all for one and one for all."
The logical system implied is fascinating in relation to context. The process
goes like this: I sacrifice myself for the good of the group in exchange for the
reciprocal privelege of the group doing the same for me.
There is truth in the saying from the Talmud that he who helps one helps
the world. Democracy, and for that matter compassion, will only work under this
type of thinking. We must use our imagination to put ourselves in other people's
places. To ask yourself, "if I were you, how would I feel?" is to exercise the
heights of the imaginative process itself; for how can we ever truly know what
the world is like from another's perspective? We may never know precisely, but
we can use our imagination to approximate what it might be like.
Cybercontextualism, therefore, is about using the imagination to navigate
through a variety of situations leading to the achievement of a goal. It
involves the activation of a continuous feedback loop starting with perception
and ending in imagination. Honestly ask yourself the following questions
continously: 1) what is my current situation (perception)? 2)Where do I want to
go, and what do I need to do to get there (imagination)? 3) where am I now
(perception)? Managing the cycle beginning with perception of the current
context, imagining the desired context, acting toward the goal, and finally
measuring your progress is the process which will move you forward.
Systems
Is a thing only the sum of its parts? Plato said that to know the truth
about a subject, you must first isolate it by definition and then continue to
divide it in kinds until you reach the limit of division. This type of analysis
has guided western thinking and science for centuries. Each discipline has its
own language, its own set of theories. Although there are many common threads
between the sciences, they each became so specialized biologists couldn't
communicate with chemists any longer. Even though the general principles
underlying biology and chemistry have a great deal in common, the practitioners
could not understand each other because they had specialized themselves into
their own prospective corners.
General systems theory provided a means for connecting knowledge from a
variety of disciplines. Systems theory sought to discover the commonalities of
information. It sought to answer the question, "what do the sciences share in
terms of knowledge?" Systems theory aimed to examine the broader picture.
Instead of dividing up a subject into smaller and smaller pieces, it took the
opposite approach: it looked at the pieces and attempted to find unifying
wholes. Jacob Bronowski once said, "all science is the search for unity in
hidden likenesses." That is precisely what the systems theorists attempted to
do.
What is a system? Draper Kaufman described a system as "a collection of
parts which interact with each other to function as a whole." In a system the
parts are less important than the collective activity of the entire entity
itself. In a restaurant, for example, we have a variety of "parts," or players.
We have the cook, the waiter, and the customer as the primary participants in
the system. None of them can function without the others. There's no point in
the cook cooking if no one is there to eat and pay for the food. The waiter
cannot serve food without having a cook to cook. The customer can't eat without
a cook. The three form a triangle of sorts, the removal of any one side
collapses its shape.
All organizations including families are essentially systems. Where would
Bart Simpson be without Homer? A baby without a parent? A teacher without
students? For that matter, what good is a kidney without a heart? An engine
without wheels? Cops without donuts?
Now, does this mean that any two parts together make up a system? No, it
most certainly does not. Two pieces of sand do not make up a system because they
are not interacting. They do not effect each other in the same way as say the
blood supply effects skin tissue. The organs of the body function as a team,
sand does not. Another way to recognize a system is to examine whether or not
mixing up the parts makes a difference. If you shake a bag of rocks, you still
have a bag of rocks no matter how long you shake it. However, if you randomly
ask each member of an organization to switch positions and job descriptions with
someone else, that organization will cease to function (unless of course each
member was equally cross trained with every other member). As Kauffman puts it,
pouring a glass of milk into two glasses gives you two glasses of milk, but
dividing a cow into two does not give you two cows! A system depends on all the
parts working together to function.
Systems are also parts of other systems. Like the Russian dolls that keep
opening up to smaller and smaller dolls, systems are naturally parts of other,
bigger systems. A single brain cell is a system in itself which is part of a
larger system, the brain, which in turn is part of an even larger system: the
human body. Humans are systems within the larger systems of neighborhoods,
cities, states, countries; a hierarchial chain extending up to the universe
itself.
Communication is systemic. You, the speaker, and the listener form a
system. You affect each other in ways that are not always obvious. The ways in
which the audience reacts to your explanations must guide your next steps. You
cannot have a simple rote plan that must be followed regardless. You must be
willing to make adjustments. The way they react defines what you will say and do
next to a certain degree.
The systemic nature of communication can be illustrated in the phenomenon
of self persuasion. As a speech instructor, I have often noticed that as my
students would learn and practice the giving of persuasive speeches, the
speakers would often end up persuading themselves, rather than the audience. For
example, one student who gave a persuasive speech against smoking found that in
the process of preparing and giving his speech (formulating arguments, acquiring
evidence, preparing visual aids, etc.) he convinced himself to quit smoking.
Most persuasion researchers have emphasized the "effects" of persuasive
messages upon audiences rather than the more indirect effect of self-persuasion,
although I have found a significant number of early studies that touched on this
unusual process.
For example, Kenneth Anderson, in a review of articles concerning
persuasion has noted: "In essence the analysis suggests that persuasion is very
much a two-way street. Although the source is setting out to influence others,
he may be strongly influenced himself; indeed that can be the key effect."
In a series of studies performed in the 1950s Irving Janus and B.T. King
observed the same phenomena that I observed with my students; namely: "In
speaking with debaters many reported to end up accepting the conclusions which
they arbitrarily were assigned to defend." The authors note: "It would appear
that `saying is believing.' That overtly expressing an opinion in conformity to
social demands will influence the individual's private opinion."
King and Janus formulated what they called an "improvisation hypothesis"
which asserts that people would be most persuaded by their own persuasive
efforts "when they are stimulated to think up new arguments and appeals in order
to do a good job of convincing others." King and Janus conducted a series of
experiments that confirmed their hypothesis.
What the above mentioned research seems to indicate is that the act of
attempting to persuade another seems to produce an inadvertent "boomerang"
effect. It may be that speakers have much more of a persuasive effect on
themselves than on their audiences. We can see this in a variety of examples.
Have you ever noticed that if you don't fully understand something it is
impossible to explain it to another? For that matter, we often figure things out
ourselves through the process of explaining our ideas to others. It has often
been said that the way to really learn something is to teach it. Perhaps we
don't really believe anything until we have tried to convince others about it.
Perhaps ministers become increasingly stronger believers the longer they preach.
Maybe the same can be said of salespeople and politicans.
Why might this be the case? It is difficult to answer why. Maybe the
reason lies behind the old maxim that it is better to give than to recieve. Why
are the helping professions so rewarding? Why do we take pleasure in giving
pleasure to others? I think the answer stems from the very reason we
communicate: we desire to partake in something bigger and greater than
ourselves. We need to extend our senses to include the perceptive abilities of
the people around us. We feel a need to be honest in our communicative efforts.
In persuading others to believe in a specific cause, we feel a certain
obligation to believe it as well.
We tend to believe people who believe what they are saying. If we are
unsure as to the truth, we tend to rely on our instincts concerning the
credibility of the speaker. As speakers, we may fall into this by accident. When
we take it upon ourselves to persuade others, we want to believe it ourselves
partially because we seem to instinctively know that they won't believe us
unless we believe it ourselves.
Ultimately communication is an extremely complex set of reactions and
chain reactions that occur between speaker and listener that could only take
place (and begin to make some sense) when examined within the context of a
system. The speaker and listener form a pair that only make sense in relation to
each other.
Positive versus negative feedback
Positive feedback means amplification. It does not simply mean, as is
commonly believed, encouragement. The most obvious example of positive feedback
is compound interest in an investment. If you leave your money alone and allow
the interest to accumulate, the entire sum just keeps growing. Postive feedback
is observed in geometric progressions of all kinds.
Negative feedback is the information that tells you when you've gone
astray. Negative feedback does not, as is commonly believed, mean criticism.
Negative feedback means course correction. If you are navigating a boat, you
never truly go in a straight line. You must keep going off course and steering
yourself back. Navigation of any sort is just this process: the continous
correction toward a straight line. Each time you go off course, you are
receiving negative feedback--which you use to get back in line. Systems
theorists call this process a negative feedback loop.
When you speak to a group, you need to develop a feedback loop with your
audience. You can accomplish this by observing their nonverbal reactions to what
you say. To they look alert? Are they yawning, squirming, looking at their
watches? The more you are in tune with your audience, the more you will learn to
watch the negative feedback loops present. You must keep in mind that your
purpose is to increase understanding, not to simply deliver a speech.
Let's talk about thermostats for a moment. A thermostat is an automatic
control device. It is a decision machine. It only looks for one piece of
information and either acts by turning a switch or does nothing. If it is set
for 70 degrees, it will turn itself on only when the temperature falls below 70.
Then when the temperature reaches 70, it shuts off. The process is simple, but
ingenious. The problem with thermostats is they can be fooled. You could stand
in a freezing room and point your hair dryer at the thermostat and it would shut
itself off. It cannot distinguish between the actual temerature of the
environment and the artifical temperature you created. You could also leave all
the doors and windows open, in which case the thermostat might stay on forever.
You could also wire the thermostat in reverse causing the heater to stay on only
when it's hot and to stay off when it's cold.
The problem in communication is that we utilize a variety of thermostats
of our own to make decisions for us. Why? Because it would be impossible to
function otherwise. What if we had to think and make a decision for our every
action? If we had to analyze every little thing we did, we'd meltdown. We just
can't afford it. The problem is that as human beings, our thermostats are
symbols. We have some genuine thermostats in our bodies. After all our body
temperature is regulated to 98.6 degrees. But most of our thermostats are mental
creations. A bias is a mental thermostat. "If you went to a prestigious school,
I'll listen to your ideas. If you didn't, I won't." "If you're well dressed,
I'll hear your sales pitch; otherwise, I'm busy." First impressions,
predjudices, strong opinions--all make up the collection of mental thermostats
we carry wherever we go.
Our mental thermostats can be fooled, just as we fooled the house
thermostat with the hair dryer. The systemic aspects of communication demand we
learn about and observe the mental thermostats of those with whom we
communicate. Doublespeak, propaganda, and all the language devices of rhetoric
can all function as "thermostat trickers."
The feedback we receive is aided or distorted by those around us. Imagine
a situation in which you are sitting in the middle of a room, blindfolded with a
sack of marbles in your hands. Your goal is to throw a marble into a pail
located somewhere inside the room guided only by the verbal directions of a
coach. The coach can tell you when you are getting "hotter or colder." What if
the coach reverses directions on you? The coach could create a situation in
which you could never win unless you suddenly did just the opposite of what your
coach instructed you to do. This happens in life all the time. We receive faulty
comparators from those around us: parents, teachers, authorities until someone
has the initiative to break the mold and go against the common point of view.
S.I. Hayakawa said, "common sense is that which tells one the world is flat."
And although common sense is not always so common, sometimes we need to break
through it dramatically just to see what lies on the other side.
The Individual versus the system
Perhaps our greatest problem has been our exagerated sense of selfimportance. It's not that we, as individuals, are not important; but that in the
grander scheme of things the species is what counts. In the end, it is all a
question of context and point of view. If alien visitors were to peer down at us
from another world, would they see us as individuals, or as a herd? Would they
even notice distinct people, or would they see us as a unit--much the way we
look at ants or bees or flocks of birds.
If there were an outside enemy threatening all life here on earth, the
different peoples here could eventually unite in a "common cause" as it were.
Look at the unification that occurs within a nation under attack.The differences
between people which in day-to-day contexts cause so much tension, would
contribute to strengthening the whole. When looked at as a whole, the human race
is one organism. The individual has strengths and weaknesses, but as long as
there are other individuals alive with complementary strengths and weaknesses we
cannot say that the human race is deficient.
Each of us is part of something greater or finer than our individual
selves. The same is true of the body itself. We don't criticize a kidney because
it is not able to pump blood through the body. It is part of a system. A body
needs kidneys to operate. It also needs a heart, lungs, and a brain. We cannot
fault one part because it doesn't perform the same functions as the other parts.
The same is true for human performance and the perception we have of our own
inadequacies. We can't all be surgeons, generals, and nobel prize winners, but
we all have our own parts to play out. We each exist as a part of a huge jigsaw
puzzle that maybe we'll never understand.
Our problem is that we have been trained not to think of ourselves as a
species. We think in terms of "I," rather than "we." You see in the long run
the individual doesn't really matter; all that matters is our general
contribution to the whole species. You and I are no different than say a couple
of skin cells in relation to the anatomy of the whole body. Yes we do have the
DNA record of the whole system within us. Yes,we are capable of reproduction,
celluar division, and cloning. Now, would you ask two skin cells to make any
sensible decisions concerning the overall direction of the organism? Would you
expect two skin cells to be able to make any sense out of the world of sensory
experience continually making itself felt upon whole organism?
My point is that as individuals we are only capable of contributing to the
entire organism in our own unique, modest ways. It is not a meager contribution-a skin cell does a fantastic job doing what it does best, protecting the entire
organism with its shell--it is however, minor compared with the sum of the
effort expended by all the other cells.
Is a brain cell better than a skin cell? If you say so. It is purely a
value judgement. Do some individuals contribute more to the survival of humanity
than others? It seems that way. But we as individuals may never know who, how,
or why. Does the skin cell consider itself more important than a brain cell?
Well, I don't think cells have feelings, per se, but if they did, they would
probably become like us; self absorbed with their own sense of importance. Of
course, we probably wouldn't survive without some pride. After all, would a
sperm run a marathon race against a million comrades if it didn't believe it was
the right guy for the job?
The Exchange Fallacy
Edward T. Hall wrote: "Language is not (as is commonly thought) a system
for transferring thoughts as meaning from one brain to another, but a system for
organizing information and for releasing thoughts and responses in other
organisms. The materials for whatever insights there are in this world exist in
incipient form, frequently unformulated but nevertheless already there in man.
One may help to release them in a variety of ways, but it is impossible to plant
them in the minds of others." This is as radical a notion about what
communication means as has ever been proposed before. Hall has offered a
fascinating definition of language which couldn't be more applicable to our
times.
To incorporate this new way of looking at communication, we need to reexamine how we define communication itself. To do this, we need a fresh look at
the process of interaction. First, we need to clear up one of the biggest
misconceptions about communication; namely the exchange fallacy. The exchange
fallacy is the mistaken notion that ideas are "things" shuttled across space
from sender to receiver. Meaning is not a "thing" which can be exchanged. Ideas
are not Chevrolets or candycanes to be sold, bartered, or given away. We cannot
"exchange" ideas. Why? Because the "giver" of an idea still possesses it after
having "given" it away. How can that be possible? While it is true that ideas do
seem to replicate (information obviously multiplies--just watch a rumor spread),
the word "exchange" is inaccurate and misleading.
There is a quantitative nature to ideas. When you "get the word out" about
an upcoming party, for example, the information about the party could be said to
diffuse throughout the community. The information multiplies from person to
person in a geometric progression. In effect, a positive feedback loop is
created which causes a multiplicative effect. Ideas spread almost like a virus:
they multiply themselves through a reproductive splitting. The host retains the
original while "photocopies" spread out into the environment.
The odd thing about the flow of information is that it stays with each
person as it spreads. This phenomenon is at the heart of the mystery of
communication; what else can you give and keep at the same time? When you talk,
you don't lose ideas. Can you imagine if speaking about your vacation would
cause you to lose all memory of it? This would be great for therapy--just
talking about your problems would cause them to go away. However, everyone would
be afraid to ever say anything good.
The problem is that we think of ideas as objects and try to apply the laws
of physics to them. We tend to think of communication in terms of the "post
office" analogy: Ideas get "sent" across space from a sender to a receiver. We
even think of words as envelopes which contain the meanings inside. Sounds
logical, but it's completely absurd. Meanings are in people, not words as the
general semanticists remind us. The post office analogy looks good on the
surface, but it is totally misleading. If it were true we would lose weight by
speaking and gain weight by listening! What would that do to the diet industry?
I can see the latest bestseller: Talk Your Way to a Trimmer Tummy.
A better way to think of ideas as states of awareness rather than as
possessions. You are either "aware" or "not aware." There can be a cobra in my
living room, but I won't know it is there unless I look at it (or step on it).
We may perceive ideas exactly the same way we perceive clouds, kids, and
sidewalks. Let's look at what happens when there is an accident. Two cars
collide at a busy intersection. The two drivers and their passengers experienced
the accident directly. The information about the accident spreads in concentric
circles away from the scene. The cars directly surrounding the two are also
somewhat involved, but from a distance. "Wow! Look at what almost happened to
us!" The information perceptually spreads out. The cars behind are forced to
stop. Traffic slows down in the opposite direction because of rubber neckers.
The whole area may become gridlocked. Someone calls the police. If the accident
is big enough, the media finds out and sends a camera crew. Trucks and cars with
cellular phones call their offices to inform them of the delay. Now, look at
what's happening here. We are describing information about the accident as if
the information itself had physical form; almost as if the information was like
an oil spill that started at the point of the injuries and just leaked out in
all directions. Although treating information as if it had a physical substance
makes it clearer in our minds, it isn't true. What is happening is that more and
more people simply become aware of the accident.
Information is in a sense, invisible. If a painting in a museum is visited
by one person (who now has "information" about the painting) or a million
people, the painting does not change. What difference does it make? Although on
the Internet one can measure the number of people who visit your web site
(called "hits"), in real life we can only indirectly "measure" information. We
could do a survey to find out how many people know the name of the surgeon
general. But the answer does not have the same significance as the counting of
any object. We could count all the chickens in the world. We could count the
number of copies of The Importance of Being Earnest that exist in all the
libraries. But we cannot measure information in the same manner.
Processing Information
We understand complex subjects better when we make comparisons to the
familiar; for example, we could compare communication to eating. Do we process
information the same way we eat? We take in food, we chew it up, it absorbs
into our systems. We keep what we need and dispose of the rest. Sometimes we eat
junk food (like soap operas); other times we eat at luxurious restaurants
sipping on a good merlot with a salmon steak, mashed potatoes, and
asparagus(sorry if I just made you hungry). All of which might be likened to
reading a classic novel. Not only does the quality of our food intake vary in
the same manner as the quality of the information we take in, the food metaphor
makes sense in other respects. We can be "hungry" for information. We can
"overeat" (what I call "infoindigestion" -- also known as information overload).
We can also suffer from "malnutrition," when we only read romance novels, only
watch sitcoms, and limit our conversations to insipid interchanges about the
weather. "Good" schools have longer and better menus. Study aids (flash cards,
Cliff notes, et al.) are like vitamins. Going to see a tutor is like being put
on a special diet. Writing an essay or preparing a speech is like baking a cake.
Following instructions is like following a recipe. Communicating, like eating,
is social; but you can also do it by yourself. If a teacher were to be compared
to a cook, the act of teaching would mean all the food would disapear by the end
of the school dayexcept, of course, for the student who "didn't get it." His
"plate" is still full. The confused student will probably be blamed because he
wouldn't eat his meal (probably snacked on junk food before dinner). Maybe the
teacher was a bad cook. If we look at learning this way, students who don't
learn are just not cleaning their plates. Most would agree the food metaphor
works as a way to describe learning. The comparisons seem endless.
But wait. You just fell into a giant salad bowl. You've bitten off way
more than you can chew. Communication is not really like eating. First of all a
smart person isn't fatter than an ignorant one. Knowledge is not a "thing" at
all. It can't be weighed, cooked, nor even measured in an objective sense.
Teachers are not really like cooks. Two students attend a lecture. One leaves
with complete understanding, the other goes home confused without any
"retention." What is the difference? Is the confused student "empty" while the
other is "full"? Did the learner "acquire" new knowledge, or simply confirm
something she already knew? If the teacher "gave" away the knowledge, why does
the teacher still know it? The problem here is called "reification." When we
treat a symbol or abstraction as if it were an object, we fall into this trap.
The point is that messages are not "things" that can be added and
subtracted like coins. Speakers do not lose anything (except maybe their
reputations) by speaking. It's not logically possible to have something and
give it away at the same time. Teachers don't lose the information they impart
to their students.One could make an argument for the reverse: the act of
speaking increases the speaker's knowledge. After all, the best way to learn is
to teach. The line between cause and effect is blurry in communication. In fact,
there may not be a line at all. Deborah Tannen once said, "Communication is a
continous stream in which everything is simultaneously a reaction and an
instigation, an instigation and a reaction."
The problem in defining communication is trying to find an acceptable
analogy. The world of printing offers something of an improvement from the post
office analogy. If you take a piece of paper and place it over a rough surface
and then rub the pencil across the paper, you will have "transfered" the image
onto the paper. However this type of image is quite different from the image you
would have acquired had you used a printing press. With a traditional printing
press, ink is placed on the press and rubs off onto the paper. In a rubbing, ink
does not pass from the press to the paper. It is a marvelous metaphor for
communication because that is what happens when we talk.
When you listen to someone speak, you make an impression of what they are
saying. You create your own version of what you hear. The sound waves from the
speaker's voice bounce off your ear drums; they don't actually permeate your
system. Even now as you are reading, your "eyes" are in a sense "rubbing"
against the page. The words stay put as you form your own notions of the
concepts.
Start thinking of communication as a process of evoking. Even the word
"educate" comes from the Latin educere: which means to draw out. A communicator
is a facilitator. Communicators assist each other in the drawing out of
information. Anatole France said, "The whole art of informing is only the art of
awakening the natural curiousity of the mind."
Knowledge Nets
Most of us think we "catch" ideas the way we catch softballs. We watch as
someone "pitches" an idea at us, we run toward it, reach out, and hope to catch
it. If we drop the ball, the pitcher has to start over. What determines if we
are able to catch the ideas that are pitched at us? Obviously it is dependent
on both the pitcher and the catcher. It doesn't matter how good a catcher you
are--if the ball isn't thrown right, you'll never catch it. It's the same with
communication: you can be a great listener, but if the ideas are not clearly
presented, you won't be able to "catch" them.
Catching anything requires a receptacle of sorts. To catch a ball that's
pitched at you, you need a good glove. A net would be better yet. In fact, the
bigger the net, the more likely you will "catch" everything that's thrown your
way. With ideas the same principle applies. You already have what we might call
a "Knowledge Net" that traps the ideas you encounter. The larger your knowledge
net the more you will be able to make sense of the ideas around you.
Although baseball provides us with an interesting metaphor for exchanging
ideas, we know that according to the exchange fallacy, ideas are not really
things that can be "thrown" about. Although it appears that ideas do go back and
forth, perhaps what is really happening is that knowledge lies dormant within us
waiting to be "activated" by awareness. The "transfer" of ideas may be more like
the effect that occurs when you rub the rim of a wet champaigne glass causing
other nearby glasses to hum in harmony. All communication may be a form of
reverberation.
The key is in making connections. If you see the relevance of new ideas to
an existing framework within your own mind, the new information is much more
likely to stick. The larger the framework, the more likely it is that new data
will find a place to rest within it. However, it is not just a question of
quantity. It is more a matter of organization. How are the existing knowledge
structures organized within you?
The same dynamics are at work when you relay information. You put your
ideas out to an audience and hope the information will "stick" to the knowledge
nets inside the minds of each member of the group. How well you are able to
accomplish this task determines your success as a speaker.
The job of relating new information is partly the job of the listener, but
it is also the responsibility of the speaker or writer. The good speaker makes
connections for the listeners by linking ideas to the knowledge structures of
the listeners.The key problem facing the speaker becomes: how do I connect my
information to that with which my audience is already familiar?
A man has no ears for that which experience has given him no access.
Nietzsche
There are two possible approaches: the particular and the universal. By
that I mean you can speak the language and identify with specific concepts and
notions that you know to be part of the experience of your audience (you are
speaking to a group of high level managers--you know they will have a common
background in the principles of management). However, you may not know that much
about the particular background of your audience. In this case you address what
you know to be the universal backgrounds of all people.
But what do we mean by universal? Is there such a thing as a list of
universal concepts? Is there a list of core concepts, or archetypes, that all
people hold in common? The psychologist Carl Jung wrote in detail about the
existence of what he called "the collective unconscious": A universal part of
the human mind that all individuals hold in common. Inside this collective
unconscious lies a series of symbols shared by all. Although Jung's ideas are
seminal to the concepts discussed in this book, I will not attempt to explicate
Jung's theories here. Rather, we will attempt to identify the types of
experiences that all people share in common and apply them to the subject of
communication.
Within the framework of any one individual's experience lie certain
commonalities independent of language. These commonalities we might call core
concepts. Language itself probably evolved as a means of survival, as a means
of communicating importancies concerning the core concepts themselves.
The Archetypal Web and the Spider of Language
The core concepts form what we might call an archetypal web. The web
consists of metaphoric themes: themes which reflect the core experiences, those
experiences primal to the human being, experiences universal to the human
condition. The core experiences speak to people across cultures without regard
to language. These themes are the original set of notions making up our
cognitive system, the starting points, the earliest experiences even independent
of language. Everyone shares the common knowledge of what it means to be part of
a family, to have a body, to know animals, nature, the elements; each of us
knows the difference between light and dark, the comfort of shelter, the
pleasures of eating. All of these themes, and more, resonate with the most basic
levels of our conceptual systems. We understand at this level without a need for
further explaination. The core concepts are intimately familiar to how we see
the world. In a sense they are the common denominators in the world of
understanding between people. They are the building blocks which support the
concepts behind our everyday conversations.
The archetypal web acts as a screen for our perceptions. It is also an
extention of our sensory perceptions. We comprehend through it the way the blind
"read" through their fingers. All of us "braille" our way through the world. We
metaphorically throw the archetypal web upon the world and grope at that which
wiggles underneath.
Before speech there is no conception; there is only perception.
Susan Langer
The earliest experience a human has is dependency, utter dependency upon
the most fundamental of all groups: the family. Prior to any experience with
using or understanding language, the initital perceptions relate directly to the
body itself. First in relation to its mother; eventually the perceptions expand
to include the immediate family. Food shortly enters the perceptual scheme, as
does a gradual sense of the environment: the body, changes in heat, lightness
and darkness--even the existence of plants and animals. All of these primal
experiences set the stage for that which is to come. The drama that will
gradually unfold throughout the individual's life will be surrounded by this
curtain of the core concepts. The core concepts are like the original training
of an actor: training the actor carries with him to each role no matter how
difficult, no matter how unusual.
The core concepts can be likened to the formative nature of a pre-school
and elementary school education. One cannot "shrug off" one's earliest
education. It has formed the individual's' relationship to learning itself. It
will stay with the child throughout his entire education.
The archetypal web of concepts is not particularly concerned with values.
Whether something is good or bad, right or wrong comes much later in life. The
web is about experience at its most basic level. It is about survival on the
physical plane at a level that is independent from understanding. Marshall
Mcluhan once said, "everyone experiences far more than he understands." This is
the case with the web of core experiences.We don't stop and examine this level
of experience from an objective, analytical perspective (this will occur much
later). Experience prior to language is pure.
Understanding depends upon familiarity. The unknown can only be made known
through its relation to a base of prior understanding. Understanding is a
matter of making connections. Connections between what you are trying to learn
and what you already know. Unfamiliar information sifts right through your
cognitive system unless it has something to stick onto. The archeytpal web is a
form of fly paper: fly paper existing inside each of us.
The archetypal web is meant to be used as a guide for creating metaphors
and analogies. If you relate what you talk about to themes within the web, you
will be more likely to connect to the world of the listener. The implications
here are that the basis of learning is within all of us. Maybe increasing
knowledge is more a matter of rearranging what is already there.
Language
Language is an explosion of metaphoric imagery produced in the vacuum of time
as one loses the innocence of living in the world of pure experience.
The process of individuation, forming one's identity as something separate
from the family and environment, causes one to seek compensation for this loss
through memory and symbolization. Memory (and any symbol for that matter) is a
substitute for experience in a continuum which begins with the archetypal and
through an explosive, dissective process of continual division eventually forms
the taxonomies of a modern dictionary; both figuratively, as in our categorical
cognitive system of memory, and literally, as in our Webster's.
Language is how we pretend chaos isn't.
Loss is a pulling apart, or explosion, which takes place through time.
Language in its most primitive form was probably an effort to recover from loss-language as lament. Indeed, the first sounds a child makes as he exits the womb
echo throughout his life. If one could go back in time and hear the first song a
human being ever sang, one wonders if it might not have been an elegy of sorts.
All conversation is only telling other people that you are not angry with them.
Gregory Bateson
One must consider that prior to using language, humans instinctively made
sounds in a variety of contexts. Besides crying (our first declaration to the
world), we howl, groan, and wimper in pain. We growl , yell, and shout in anger.
We laugh in joy, moan in pleasure, coo to comfort, and giggle when gleeful.
These beginning sounds are intimately connected to our use of language and
always will be. The chords between primal emotion and words are deeply set.
True language begins when a sound keeps its reference beyond original use.
Susan Langer
Language is also about hope. It provides the string in Theseus's labyrnth
allowing us to reflect upon and rectify our confusion. It brings us together in
a world of fragmentation. The use of language is first and foremost an attempt
to heal the rupture. Is it any wonder that a child's first words are "momma"? Is
not the purpose of these original sounds to bridge the inexplicable gap? First
we were a whole. Then we we were apart. Words fill the void. In a sense words
could be seen as physical objects intended to create a bridge of sorts between
the family. An effort to rectify the wholeness that once was and to reify a
desired reality.
In one of its functions, it may be said that language is a device for taking
mysteriousness out of mystery.
Aldus Huxley
It's somewhat ironic that while symbols are a one of the big reasons we
are in the mess we are in today, they also provide us with a means for solving
our problems. Symbols are tools, and as anyone who has tried to use a chain saw
without training can testify, using tools without skill can land you in a heap
of trouble. The biggest problem we face with language is confusing it with that
with which it is supposed to represent: a mistake we've been making since day
one. As Herbert Spencer pointed out, "In primitive thought the name and the
object named are associated in such wise that the one is regarded as a part of
the other." I.A. Richards notes that "the greater part of mankind must once have
believed the name to be that integral part of a man identified with the soul, or
to be so important a portion of him that it might be substituted for the whole,
as employers speak of factory `hands'." This metonymy sprang out of a desire to
recreate reality, to re-establish what once was through a form of
pretending.This sort of thinking led to magic, witchcraft, vodoo, and all the
rest. As Alfred Korzypski was so found of saying, "the map is not the
territory." Confusing the name with the thing leads to cognitive blindness.
Verbal categorization inhibits perceptual learning.
Dean Barnlund
When we set things to words; when we say that so and so "is" something, we
close the doors to other possiblities.The mere act of defining says as much
about what an object is not, as it says about what an object is. The minute we
say the word "is," we have closed the door of definition unless we leave the
door cracked open with a conjunction. Leave conjunctions as door stops because
one can never truly have the last word on anything. "John is mean when he feels
threatened, but he can be quite gentle when you feed him sweets."
A
conjunction is a disclaimer that says we haven't heard everything there is to
say about our subject. Barnlund called this phenonemon "conjunctivitus": the
failure to use conjunctions. A disease which leads to the mistaken notion that
one has said all that needs to be said about any one subject.
Besides insisting we not confuse the map with the territory, the general
semanticists made another great contribution to our understanding of language
and the pitfalls associated with it. Korzypksi utilized something called
"indexing," a technique for labeling things in time using subscript numbers. For
example, if we see John yelling at someone, we tend to form a definition of
John. John is a maniac. The problem is this definition may cloud any perceptions
of John's good nature in the future, for as we have seen earlier verbal
cataegorization inhibits thought. We didn't necessarily mean that John is a
maniac in the absolute sense.What we really meant was that John--at that
particular moment in time and in that particular context--was a maniac. We don't
mean that he always was a maniac, and we don't mean that he always will be one
either. The problem is that by saying he is one, the mind tends to shut down and
we may start treating him like a maniac from here on out. We take a hold of one
"fact," and hold on to it to the exclusion of any further evidence. We ignore
the fact that things and people change. We look at life from a static series of
photographs instead of seeing it as a multimedia event.
Facts are quick glimpses in a ceaseless transformation.
Wendall Johnson
Prisoners who get out of jail, managers fired from their jobs, and the boy
who cried wolf all have first hand experience with what we are up against here.
Saying it's so can make it so. Now, Korzypski invented an exercise to help
people avoid this consequence of language misusage. The technique is to write
out the time beside the noun. For example, John 1990 is distinguished from John
1996. Indexing as a technique may seem unnatural at first, but it helps us avoid
the contextual overlap that occurs almost automatically when we use language.
If we avoid these two major problems: confusing the map with the
territory, and a failure to index; we can take advantage our our ability to
manipulate symbols.
Symbol usage allows us to cooperate on a high level. We can plug into the
nervous system of all our contemporaries. My eyes include all your eyes.
Dean Barnlund
It is only through symbol usage that we are capable of processing
information the way we do. The usage of symbols provides us with what Margaret
Mead described as "access to the diversity of mankind." The more flexible and
less rigid we can be with symbols, the more they will serve us.
Origins of Language
Imagine an era in which language hardly existed. A group of cave dwellers
is relaxing around the camp fire enjoying shadow figures while grunting when
Glog (a neanderthal) decides to take a brief walk away from camp to answer the
call of nature (whether or not our ancestors were that considerate is purely a
matter of speculation). On the way back to camp, Glog walks into the path of a
saber-toothed tiger. Survival is threatened, panic hits, Glog has a definite
visceral reaction: he freaks out.
Glog runs back to camp, panting. Major problem: how to tell the story?
Glog feels the need to tell everyone what happened. The others want to know-they
can see Glog has been greately affected by some sort of experience. The
situation demands clarity and explanation. But Glog is limited by his vocabulary
(maybe a dozen words). He tries to imitate the saber-toothed tiger; maybe he
even draws the tiger in the dirt. He doesn't have words, so he relies on
gestures.
Language is first and foremost a system of gestures. Animals, after all, have
only gestures and tone of voice--and words were invented later. Much later. And
after that they invented school masters.
Gregory Bateson
What does Glog do? All he can do is to search within his own experience
for similarities--anything that the other members of his clan might understand
and relate to. The intensity of the experience demands that the information be
conveyed; for if the others do not know about the existence of saber-toothed
tigers, they will all be in great jeopardy. As Glog looks inward for a means of
making sense out ot the experience, he stares directly into his core concepts.
It is from those core concepts that he will eventually arrive at an
understanding and means of expression.
As Glog has no word for a saber-toothed tiger, he is forced to ask him
self the question, "what is a saber-toothed tiger like? He looks within for
similarities...he searches for some comparable concept to make the new
information he possesses regarding this very important animal comprehensible to
others. He is striving to make information make sense.
It could happen that the tiger might suddenly reappear in the middle of
the camp for all to see. In a way this would solve Glog's problem. Now, all the
members of the tribe would be in the same predicament: they would have a
dangerous experience for which they have no words. They could now put their
collective heads together and come up with a word they could all agree on. The
increase in the number of individuals experiencing the same phenonoma increases
the likelyhood and the urgency that a word will be formed.
Now, the beauty of words in this context is that they allow the members of
the tribe to share information about danger without the necessity of
experiencing that danger first hand. "There's a nest of cobras behind that rock"
translates to group survival. The more communication, the better. The tighter
the communication between group members, the fewer people need to learn about
the nest of cobras through snake bites. Words free us from continually
reinventing the experiential wheel. Knowlege thus becomes a well for all to draw
on.
Symbols spring out of the vacuum left by experience
That is to say, after an experience has happened, the individual who
experienced the experience is left with only a memory. The fullness of the
experience has passed. The memory itself is a symbol: a trace copy representing
the original moment. It is a substitute for the real thing.
Dangerous
experiences naturally demand stronger symbolic representations.The greater the
danger, the more important the symbol. From this we could reason that animals
that were sought out as food were probably given names earlier than other
animals because of their importance to survival.
The more revelvant an experience is to survival, the sooner it will be named.
Dangerous times call for increased communication in a community. Short
term memory, being what it is, forces us to disregard ideas that we deem as
unimportant. Is it important to my survival? If if is, it goes into memory; if
it isn't, forget it. How do we put it into memory? One way is to give it a
name.
Names were invented to keep us from forgetting.
That's why we are so offended when someone forgets our name: they've
forgotten us. Our close identification with our names is holdover from
primitive thought. We think we are our names and titles. The current trend in
modern companies to eliminate job titles is an interesting form of rebellion
against an ancient trend.
Information overload is also a fundamental factor in the human (and
machine) processing of data. We just don't have the storage space to take
everything in--unless it is important to our survival. It doesn't matter how
busy you are, if someone tells you not to take the elevators today because the
controls are broken, and that anyone who walks into the shaft will fall twenty
stories--you won't forget that. Information directly relevant to survival always
goes to the top of the list.
The symbolization of dangerous experiences are automatically repeated (and
thus become stronger) in an effort to avoid their reoccurance. When a group is
in communication, the knowledge of one becomes the knowledge of all just as in
education the knowledge of a few becomes the knowledge of many.
Of course there are other factors at work besides danger.
Repetition creates stronger awareness.
If the saber-toothed tiger were an one time only occurrence, the entire
event might never become articulated. But, as others see sabertoothed tigers,
and as the cave dwellers compare experiences, words and articulation of the
experience are bound to occur. Just as typing over the same letters with a
typewriter creates a bold face type, so it is with experience. We don't just
experience the core concepts once, we experience them continually. The sun rises
and sets every day, we feel the change of the seasons, warmth and cold, the
elements, the pain and pleasure of the body. All the core concepts are felt
again and again.
Knowledge itself is an intermingling among the harmonics of symbolic experience.
That is to say, words and ideas resonate out from the core concepts in
concentric circles. These circles interact in a web like fashion creating a net.
As new ideas are introduced to an individual, they either attract and attach
themselves to the net, or they slip through because they are not perceived as
relevant. To the degree that a speaker is aware of the "net" of core concepts
making up his audience, he can attempt to resonate with it and thus make sense.
To the degree you associate new ideas within the net, you will be able to
understand what you hear on a gut level.
Figurative Fugues and Metaphoric Memories
The symbol and the metaphor are as necessary to science as to poetry.
Jacob Bronowski
Analogy comes from the Greek analogos which means according to ratio. An
analogy compares two thing-often one difficult to understand with something more
concrete and readily understandable. Behind the notion of analogy lies the
belief that because two things resemble each other in some ways they will have
additional similarities. Analogies help us imagine new ideas through comparison.
Analogies help us "connect the dots" in communication. Analogies help us
make connections between what we already know and what we wish to learn. The
history of science is filled with examples of great inventions that sprung out
of analogic thinking. The medical doctor William Harvey discovered the
circulation of the blood by looking at the heart as a "pump." Chemist Frederich
KeKule made his famous discovery of the benzene ring after dreaming of a snake
with a tail in its mouth. Original ideas come about by making new connections.
All science is the search for unity in hidden likenesses.
Jacob Bronowski
The poet Rimbaud said metaphor could change the world. According to
MacCormac: "Metaphors bring about changes in the ways in which we perceive the
world, and these conceptual changes bring about changes in the ways we act in
the world." Colonel Swartzkopf's use of the words "surgical strike" to describe
air raids in Desert Storm influenced the public's perception of the war.
Certainly a surgical strike is preferable to a bombing. It sounds anticeptic,
precise, based on medical advice. God knows you don't want any germs around when
you're in the middle of a bombing.
Metaphors bring about these changes in perceptions by tacitly comparing
two unlikely concepts. A listener, hearing a metaphor for the first time, is
presented with a new concept that produces a certain psychological tension due
to the pairing of two normally unrelated concepts.
Jacques Derrida and Paul Ricoeur have argued that metaphor is the very
means by which new concepts are created. When something is perceived for the
first time, we lack the vocabulary to explain it. When we experience that which
we have no words for, our minds search for substitutes.
We all experience far more than we understand.
Marshall McCluhan
Gregory Bateson said of metaphor: "A metaphor retains unchanged the
relationship which it "illustrates" while substituting other things or persons
for the relata." That is to say metaphors are relationship exchangers--they
describe relationships by switching around the players. If I call my boss a
dictator, I'm really comparing my relationship with my boss to the type of
relationship a dictator would form with the populace. Metaphors only make sense
when you view them from a systemic, relational perspective.
Metaphors and analogies provide a link from the unknown to the known. New
information cannot be assimilated in a vacuum. When reported UFO sightings first
started hitting the news, the word "flying saucer" came into use. It was a
reasonable metaphor because it provided a temporary explanation of the
unexplainable. When tribal people first see an airplane, all they can think to
call it is a "silver bird."%
Aristotle said metaphor is the giving a thing a name which belongs to
something else. A good example of this is the way we discuss the Internet. It
started off as "the information highway," an expression that worked well enough.
Many couldn't understand the concept of a large network of computers, but they
certainly knew what a highway was. From there it was easy to link information
and computers to that basic understanding. The information highway was not an
adequate metaphor, however. All metaphors break down at some point, and the
"information highway" was no exception. The Internet is not a road. You don't
"go" anywhere. It is the opposite. You sit at home and information comes to you.
The interconnecting wires and cables that make up the Internet can be looked at
as a highway (in that they stretch out across the world), but electrons travel
on them, not humans.
Another metaphor for the using the Internet is "surfing," which takes a
bit of stretching of the imagination. Using the Internet can be fun, but no one
would describe it as exhilerating. It's certainly not dangerous, nor is it
athletic, nor even a sport. Using the Internet is a workout the way watching
Beverly Hills 90210 is a workout. Again, the metaphor falls short.
Then there is the world wide web. Now we're getting to a good metaphor.
The Internet is very much like a spider's web. It stretches from location to
location. It certainly looks more like a web than a freeway. Its strands are
pervasive, yet delicate. It is clear, and it refers to nature: an archetypal
theme. In short, it's perfect as a means of conveying information.If the
Internet were only referred to as "the Internet," it would probably not be
experiencing the phenomenal growth we see today.
Fiction versus nonfiction
When you first walk into a public library, you are offered a choice
between two main categories of books: nonfiction and fiction. I submit that a
human being is organized in much the same fashion. What has happened to us in
the past is factual: it lives in the realm of nonfiction. However, the future,
as you perceive it today, will always exist in the realm of fiction. The future
is imaginary until it happens. A part of us is most comfortable with the world
of nonfiction: we like facts, we are literal, linear, orderly, and we like to
know what the rules are. On the other hand, our fictional side is more concerned
with stories, metaphors, and dreams. It likes to play (rather than work, as our
nonficitonal side would have us do). The nonfictional side is logical, whereas
the nonfictional side is mythological.
The world as we know it is a set of stories that must be chosen among in order
for us to live life in a process of continual re-creation.
Walter Fisher
It may be that some individuals lean toward one side more than the other
(as we see in the left brain-right brain theory), just as some individuals
prefer reading James Joyce to the New York Times. It is important to consider
the person with whom you are talking. Although it may be valuable to seek to
establish the fictional versus nonfictional disposition of the individuals with
whom you communicate, it may be more important to recognize that most people
rely on both.
When we communicate with others we must pay attention to both sides (this
is as true in interpersonal matters as it is in speechwriting). It is necessary
to appease both sides and provide a means for some sort of integration to occur
between the two.
Although the fictional side is often downplayed (especially among
scientists and high technology types), I would argue that Paul Ricoeur was
right: The world of fiction leads us to the heart of the real world of action.
That is to say fiction comes first. We dream before we act in the real world.
Stories, dreams, drama: these are the things that inspire us to go forth into
the daily battle of everyday life. The fictional side is more visceral, more
universal, more archetypal; the nonfictional side, however, is necessary to
follow through with our dreams and carry them out in the world.
It holds that symbols are created and communicated as stories meant to give
order to human experience and to induce others to dwell in them in order to
establish ways of living in common.
Walter Fisher
Just as an organization needs a visionary to guide it, it also needs an
accountant to keep it from going backrupt. We all need inspiration and lofty
ideals, but we also need a path to walk on.
Communications need to be structured to allow both sides of the person to
feel comfortable, to feel acknowledged. Good advertising demonstrates this
principle in action. We see the homage to fantasy (the polar bear drinking a
bottle of coke), but we also know the facts behind the fanstasy (that we can buy
one at the corner store).
If human beings were mainly nonfictional in nature, advertising as we know
it wouldn't need to exist; all we would see is classified advertising (just the
facts). We would all buy generic cigarettes, for what possible motivation could
a lonesome cowboy on his horse provide? We would be impervious to hype in all
its forms: we'd vote for candidates based on their records. Television shows
would cease to be one of our biggest exports. The fashion industry would
disapear overnight (Who needs Yves Saint Laurent? I just want to keep warm),
cars would all look the same (all that matters is that you reach your
destination), architecture would be 100% functional and consist of engineering
only (just give me four walls and a roof over my head), art in all its forms
would cease to exist, including decoration (spend money on a painting?).
Sullivan would not have said, "Form follows function," for all he would
have been concerned with is functionality. If all humans were completely
nonfictional by nature, the uniformity of the old U.S.S.R. would look like a
costume ball in comparison to the sameness that would pervade every aspect of
our lives.
I use the term, "technoliteralist" to describe the mindset of this type of
thinking. We all know someone like this. Joe Friday (from Dragnet) who always
liked to say, "just the facts, mam," could have been the examplar
technoliteralist if he included technology in his retorts. Technolisteralism is
a condition--one might even say pathological condition--brought on by excessive
literalnes.s
Humans do not logically need fiction; they don't logically need
literature, sculpture, or music. But what would life be like without Beethoven
and the Beatles? How happy would our daily lives seem without sitcoms and soaps?
Would we be happy in a world where all we could watch was CNN, MacNeil Leher,
and Nature? I think not.
Strive to create balance and harmony between both sides in all your
communications. Realize you must address the logical nonfictional side, but that
it is perilous to completely ignore the fictional side.
Your existing assumptions contribute to what might be called your "assumptive
world." It is the only world which is known and it determines how we perceive
the world.
Dean Barnlund
The Nonfiction Section of
Literal
Plans
Works
Respects
Looks for foes
Cautious
Writes reports
Logical
Makes rules
Separates
Sees differences
The past
Linear
Divides
Subtracts
Me
The Fiction Side of Me
Metaphoric
Dreams
Plays
Acts irreverant
Looks for friends
Careless
Writes Poetry
Mythological
Breaks rules
Connects
Sees similarities
The future
Circular
Multiplies
Adds
Literal versus Metaphoric
Literalness can be taken to extremes. Literal people demand everything be
explained. They tend to be rigid in their thinking. They value the tight
compartmentalization the definitional nature of language provides.
Planning versus Dreaming
Although we need to do both we can see that the two are really quite
different. The nonfiction side of a person is primarily concerned with planning.
The future demands preparation. At all costs one must be ready for the dangers
and mishaps that are sure to happen. Concern about the future has a great deal
to do with fear: the fear that things might not turn out as we hope. The
nonfictional side of the personality is trained to plan. It is trained to
predict the outcomes of a given situation. Planning, above all, requires
realism for a plan is only as good as the planner's observation of the
situation.
Dreaming on the other hand, is not particularily concerned with reality.
The emphasis is on fantasy:what could be rather than what will be. Dreaming does
not require a purpose; it doesn't require an objective. Dreaming provides an
escape from reality as opposed to the confrontational nature of planning--which
demands an adequate assessment of a sequence of events.
Dreaming must come before planning. One always starts with a dream, and
then eventually plans how to bring it about. Dreaming is a prerequisite to
planning. One dreams of becoming a doctor, and then one goes about the business
of planning and execution.
One can dream for its own sake, but in utilitarian terms a dream is
useless without planning to follow it up. My stock example of this is the
creative "type" who constantly talks about putting on a show, or putting out a
record and yet never puts out the time to make it happen.
The opposite can happen as well. In seeking to motivate a group, it is
not enough to talk about plans. The plans must fall within the context of the
dream. "Our plan is to reduce employee turnover by twenty percent, and this is
how we plan to do it." This could easily become a terribly boring speech. It
must be related to the dream behind the plan. The dream might be for everyone to
work for a company with high morale: an ideal work situation where management
and employees are content and eager to come to work. Touch on the dream, make it
palpable to the audience. Then focus on the plans to make it happen. You speak
to both sides of the audience: the fictional and the nonfictional.
Work and Play
Work and play are not as different as they seem.Those who truly love what
they are doing will think of it as play instead of work. Play comes naturally to
the fictional side of a person.. No one has to be taught to play; it is
something we are born knowing how to do. Work, on the other hand, requires a
purpose with an end objective in mind. Work involves planning, perseverance, and
putting up with a livable amount of pain.
An analogy to working versus playing might be drawn in the animal kingdom
between playing and fighting. Animals look like they are fighting when they play
but there are obvious differences. When they play they're having fun. They act
rough but there isn't any bloodshed.
When you communicate you must speak to the playful side of the person. Be
playful with them and appeal to that natural insinct.
Respect and Irreverance
Obviously one cannot be disrespectful of one's audience. But one can take
respect too far. Expressing disrespect for those the audience detests can do
more for you as a speaker than expressing respect to those the audience
admires.The fictional side of a person leans toward irreverance because it
aligns more closely to one's true nature. All great revolutions and social
movements stem from the disrespect of authority.
There is a part of each of us that realizes rules are fictional creations
that need to be laughed at from time to time. To venture forth outside the
rules, against the "authorities" can, in the right contexts, create a strong
bond of friendship (it can also get you fired--depending on the situation).
Why do political opponents spend so much time debasing the other side?
Simple, they get more mileage that way. Of course, you have to be
careful...audience analysis is a key to making this work. The key is be
irreverant against the universal dislikes-tyranny, injustice, unfairness, and so
on. No one can argue against someone who's against unfairness. They may disagree
with what you see as unfair, the trick is to portray it in such a general way
that they can't find fault with your argument.
Any type of "youth movement" is bound up in irreverance: irreverance
against authorities that have lost touch with the present reality. The young
understand the nature of authority and power;they understand that they alone
will inheritit power and eventually change the rules.
Friend versus foe
Whenever we meet someone he or she must first pass through a fundamental
filter. A filter in our mind that asks the simple question: is this person a
potential friend or a potential foe? This becomes the first snap judgment in a
series of snap judgments we will end up making about every person with whom we
come in contact. It's probably been this way since the beginning. This initial
judgment acts like the doorman in front of studio 54: if you make it past him,
you're in the game, if not you stay outside.
Our survival depends on having a fairly reliable intuition about people
who might be a threat to us. This internal warning system is probably genetic in
nature, "hard wired," so to speak in our biology. If we did not have a system
for judging potential threats, how could we survive as a species?
Our nonfictional side is always on guard, always on the lookout for
dangers, unsuspecting dangers. The nonfictional side of us never wants to be in
the position of saying, "See, I told you so." Its job is to protect, and it does
that by continually examining reality. It likes to pull away, to disconnect from
people and things so it might take a better look. You can't, after all, see
something unless you are distant from it.
The fictional side of us takes a radically different approach. My stock
example for this is the young child who wanders into a group of strangers out of
curiousity, seemingly oblivious to our cultural taboo against talking to
strangers. The child wants to make friends because it knows that only by
connecting can it engage its senses. The child wants to be a part of all things.
We can't escape the simple fact that one must connect with something first
before we find out if it is good or not. You must try new things continually.
How will you ever know if you like Peking duck unless you order it on the menu?
Cautious versus careless
There are times when caution pays, but there are also moments when discoveries
can only be made by making mistakes. The nonfictional side leans toward caution.
Be careful, don't make mistakes, watch where you're going--our nonfictional self
wishes to avoid mistakes. Mistakes can cost us time, cost us money, even cost us
our lives. "Measure twice, cut once." "Look before you leap."
Mistakes can be costly, but they can also reap huge dividends. Discoveries
are, after all, sudden realizations that pop up unexpectantly. At times being
"careless" can allow new combinations of things to pop up. One must place
oneself in the position of allowing synchronicity to occur. Ideally, a person
needs to integrate caution with carelessness. Plan your environment in such a
way as to allow for fortunate "accidents" to occur.
Reports versus poetry
Reports present information in an orderly fashion. It's Joe Friday
correspondence (just the facts, mam). At times all we need is a clear
presentation of the facts. Reports also provide data at needed time intervals.
The newspaper is a report: a report of what is happening around the world.
Poetry is altogether different. Poetry allows us to break down barriers
and put things together in new ways. There are no rules to poetry. The fictional
side longs for the presentation of language without regard to the tyranny of a
report. Poetry is more closely related to mythology, and undoubtedly closer to
the roots of how language evolved. The language devices of poetry have important
applications to the presentation of any report type of information.
Logic versus Mythology
Our nonfictional side is happy with the world of logic. The orderly world
of thought in which one idea naturally stems from another. If all men are mortal
and Aristotle was a man, then he was certainly mortal. The syllogism has its
place. Its mathematical precision primes the pump of our longing for factual
data.
Mythology, on the other hand, is concerned with universal stories that
speak to our need to identify with something greater or finer than our small
lives. Myths remain timeless, and do not follow the rules of logic. They have
their own logic--not the logic of science, but the logic of whatever story is
trying to be told.
Separate versus Connected
The nonfictional mind takes things apart and operates through a process of
division. An idea is broken down until it can no longer be divided.
First, you must know the truth about the subject you speak or write about; that
is to say, you must be able to isolate it in definition, and having so defined
it you must understand how to divide it in kinds, until you reach the limit of
division.
Plato
Plato was talking about the basic model of science and classification.
General categories become increasingly specific. Mammals break down to bears
which break down to brown bears.
Connecting, on the other hand, seeks similarities rather than differences.
Oh yeah, writing a story is like following a recipe, which is like building a
house, which is like raising a child... Connections link ideas together.
It is interesting how we explain by separating ideas and showing off their
differences, and yet we understand by connecting similarities. Ideally, in ideal
discourse and conversation we alternate between the two.
Linear versus Circular
Our nonfictional self likes to see things go in orderly straight lines:
from A to B. It is, of course, a pretense, because straight lines are fictional.
No line is truly straight. When we drive a vehicle, we like to think we are
driving in a straight line when in fact we are continously going off course and
making the subtle course corrections to keep us going in the right general
direction. If you stand back far enough, it appears you are going straight, but
upon careful observation you would see that most lines are sine curves instead.
Interestingly enough, even though the nonfictional mind prefers straight
lines (which are fictitious), the fictional mind prefers the circular
familiarity of the cycle--which is grounded in reality. The cycle of the
seasons, of birth and death, of light to dark are all universal experiences
which we find comforting and comprehensible.
Glossary
Activator: The last stage in the cybernetic process: the push or thrust toward
the goal.
Active Listening: Active listening is a participative form of listening. Active
listening involves giving feedback to the speaker through acknowledgments,
paraphrasing, summarizing, and nonverbal communication.
Addressing: The perceived notion that a message is intended for a specific
individual. The ultimate addressing occurs when someone calls your name prior to
speaking. The opposite end extreme of addressing is junk mail addressed to
"current resident." A high level of addressing helps assure the listener will
pay attention.
Analogy: A direct comparison based on the notion that if two things are similar
in one regard they will be similar in other ways as well.
Aesthetic Dissonance: The clash that occurs when speaker and listener have
different aesthetic tastes.
Alliteration: The repetition of the same or similar sounds in a consecutive
series of words, as in "Sweet sorrow brings such surreal serenity."
Anadiplos: Repeating the last word in the next thought, as in "Should I believe
in his honesty: honesty such as his?
Anaphora: The use of repetition in a song-like poetic sense. "I came. I saw. I
conquered." "I speak for those who are oppressed, for those who are mistreated,
for those who dare to think they too might rise above the madness."
Anastrophe: Inversion of normal syntax for effect. "Blessed are the meek." Happy
are you who have come here tonight." (If you wern't using anastrophe you would
simply say, "The meek are blessed, and those of you who have come here tonight
are happy."
Antithesis: Reversal of cause and effect within a sense to create an ironic
effect. "Poverty breeds illness and illness breeds a greater poverty." "There
used to be three cops on the street for every crime. Now there's three crimes on
the street for every cop."
Archetype: A universal theme or pattern representing human experience. In
Jungian psychology archetypes are symbols in the collective unconscious that can
only be partly known to the individual. The archetypes manifest themselves in
dreams and infuence individuals in an invisible fashion. In poetry archetypal
themes are general patterns: birth, death, coming of age--these types of
experiences are common across cultures.
Archetypal Metaphor: Metaphors of archetypal themes: lightness versus darkness,
nature, the cycle of life and death, sickness and health.
Archetypal Web: The core concepts by which a person organizes the perceptual
scheme. The archetypal web represents the most fundamental metaphors which frame
the cognitive structure. The web consists of universal experiences which combine
to act as a filter for incoming information.
Brailling: The act of perceiving by placing the web of experience around the
world and "feeling" it though that filter.
Boomerang Effect: The process of self persuasion: when you accidentally "talk
yourself" into something while you are trying to persuade others.
Catachresis: The use of the wrong word for a certain context, as in "blind
ears."
Code of Silence Dilemna: The conflict of values between contexts as in the
struggle between the desire to speak out about a crime and the need to keep
quiet for personal and group safety.
Comparator: The second stage in the cybernetic process. Comparing that which
exists to the desired state. The comparator is the process of looking at what is
and what should be at the same time.
Compare and Contrast: A technique for showing the similarities and
dissimilarities between two things.
Contextual Marker: (From Bateson) That which tells you which context you are in.
For example if you are watching a play about a murder, you don't call the
police. You know it's a play because of the "markers" (the curtains, the stage,
etc.)
Contextual Myopia: An inability to see the bigger contexts involved.
Contextual Overlap: The conflict occurring when an action acceptable in one
context is mistakenly performed in an inapropriate context.
Contextual Reformating: A change in context brought down from a higher level. A
change in law or policy results in contextual reformatting.
Core Concept: A universal experience originating in the beginning of life:
warmth and cold, the family, and touch are all core concepts.
Cybernetics: The science of communication and control. Cybernetics is concerned
with sensors (a means of taking in information from the environment),
comparators (analysis or comparison between two states--such as a switch being
either off or on), and activators (an implulse or action in a specific
direction). A guided missle is an example of cybernetics in action. The missle
senses its target (sensor), continually compares its course with the location of
its target (comparator), it adjusts itself accordingly (activator) to keep on
the correct path until it hits its destination.
Cybercontextualism: A term that combines cybernetics with the importance of
establishing the true context of the situation as a means of achieving goals.
Double Bind: The result of mixed messages. If a child is told to keep quiet and
then repremanded for not asking questions, that child is put into a double bind
situation.
Ethos: The character of a speaker. Also referred to as credibility.
Exchange Fallacy of Communication: The mistaken notion that communication
consists entirely of exchanging ideas as if they were things in themselves.
Excessive Literalness: An inability to recognize or use metaphor.
Explichaustion: Mental fatigue brought on by tiresome explanations.
Faulty Comparator: A mistaken method of comparing what you want with what you
actually have. Faulty comparators give you wrong directions. A bad map, a
misinformed guidance counseler, an ill-informed stock broker--all could be
considered faulty comparators.
Figurative Incompatibility: When a speaker uses figurative language that doesn't
match the disposition of the listener. A manager that continually uses sports
metaphors to describe the company's mission will create figurative
incompatibility in someone who doesn't understand or appreciate the vocabulary
of sports.
Figurative Language: The use of imagery in place of literal descriptions.
File Compression: In this case, file compression refers to any technique for
making data more compact. Metaphors, anagrams, charts, and graphs are all
techniques for compressing data.
Hopscotching: Jumping from one concept to another without fully explaining
anything.
Horatio Algerism: The mistaken belief that one do anything through selfdetermination with or without the support of others.
Hyperbole: Obvious overstatement or exaggeration. "His performance caused the
entire world to stop and take notice."
Interrogatio: The rhetorical question: a question asked for which no one expects
an answer. "Is there anyone here among us who would not like a richer life?"
Infocentrism: Believing so thoroughly in one body of data that evidence to the
contrary is ignored.
Incompatible Platforms: When two people cannot communciate because of clashing
world views.
Information:
Information Theory:
Infocentrism: The belief that one's information is superior to others, which,
when taken to extremes closes the mind to new information.
Infoindigestion: Information overload which occurs after trying to take in too
much information.
Logos: The use of logic and reason.
Macrocontext: The outer layers of the contextual shell. Concern for global (as
opposed to personal) issues mark the macrocontext of any situation. The "big"
picture as opposed to the short term, snapshot view.
Mental thermostat: A form of automatic thinking, a preconceived, preplanned,
prepackaged decision. Mental thermostats can be harmful (as in bias) or helpful
(as in learning to play the piano so you don't have to think about each stroke).
Metacommunication: Communication about communication, as in talking about the
way you communicate.
Metaphor: Saying one thing to mean another. A metaphor takes a word that
literally means one thing and uses it to describe something else.
Metaphoric Disposition: The theory that some people are more predisposed toward
certain categories of metaphor. For example, one person (or culture) may think
in terms of biological type metaphors whereas another might see things more
clearly in terms of economic type metaphors. "The fruit of our labor," versus
"our efforts are starting to pay big dividends."
Microcontext: The smaller layers of context in the contextual shell. The needs
of a small business are a microcontext within the entire business community.
Pathos: Appealing to the emotions of the listener.
Personal Danger: Explaining material in relation to real or perceived threats in
the mind of the listener.
Persuasion: The effort to change or influence the beliefs and/or actions of the
listener.
Point of Alienation: The moment when the listener shuts down or withdraws from
the speaker because of a lack of understanding.
Power Dissonance: The effect upon understanding resulting from a wide disparity
in power between two or more individuals.
Redundancy: The repetition of a message. Increasing redundancy provides greater
assurance a message will get through to the listener.
Relevance: The degree to which a listener believes a message has importance and
meaning to his or her own life.
Reset: An action that remedies contextual overlap by allowing the organism to
adjust the the context of the present. Physical touch, exercise, walks in
nature--these types of activities reset the physical system.
Rhetorical Strategies: Techniques for bringing about persuasion.
Rhythmic Dissonance: The conflicts arising from communication with individuals
who pace their speech differently. A taxicab driver from the Bronx and a
professor from Cambridge would probably experience rhythmic dissonance.
Self-persuasion: A boomerang effect of giving a persuasive speech whereby the
speaker, rather than the audience, winds up persuading him or herself.
Semantic Dissonance: A clash resulting from two different interpretations of the
same word. A well paying job may mean 30,000 to one person and 300,000 to
another.
Sensor: The first step of the cybernetic process: sensing or becoming aware of
the environment.
Systems Theory: A school of scientific thought emphasizing the relationships of
the parts to whole. Systems theory is concerned with the interdependence between
the individuals making up the system.
Three Muskateerism: A method of approaching behavior within a group from the
perspective of "all for one and one for all." Mutual dependence among the group.
Metphoric Themes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Animal
Art
The body
Botanical
Container
Economic/Political
Elements/Nature
Familiar Objects
Famous People or Events
Food
Geographic References
Houses/Structures
Journey
Light/Dark
Mathematics
Mechanical Devices
Military/Violence
Orientational
Personification
Psychological States
Sports/Play
Supernatural
Glossary of Metaphoric Themes
1.
Animal: Animal metaphors abound. He is a wolf. He is a lamb. Hungry as a
horse. We like to compare ourselves to other animals because their
roles seem
on stories
so simple and clear in our world. Much mythology also bases itself
involving humans and animals.
2.
Art: The world of art (including fine art and music) is often borrowed
from to
explain other situations in our lives that are technically unrelated
to art. Our
plan is in harmony with our objectives. His ideas are out of
tune with our way
of thinking.
3.
Body: The human body is a good illustration for many complex concepts.
Plato once even described a speech using metaphors of the body: "Every
discourse is put together like a living creature--it has a body of its
own-all
and hence lacks neither head nor foot, but has both middle and extremities
composed in such a way that they suit each other and the whole."
4.
Container:Container metaphors explain ideas as vessels that can hold
things.
For example when you say, "I am in love," or " I fell out of love,"
you are
describing love as a container that you can fall into or fall
out of. An abstract
idea like love becomes more real when described as
if it were a container. I am in trouble. I was carried to new heights. I got
out of that situation.
5.
into
Economic/Political: The vocabulary of finance and politics often creep
our every day conversations because they can be so descriptive. This
relationship is not paying off. I need to invest more time into my
studies. The
manager is a lame duck.
1.
Animal
Creativity Notes: According to Nicholas Negroponte, "The best way to guarantee a
steady stream of new ideas is to make sure that each person in your organization
is as different as possible from the others. Under these conditions, and only
these conditions, will people maintain varied perspective and demonstrate their
knowledge in different ways." Wired Magazine Jan 96 p. 204.
New ways of Looking at Organizations
Tom Peter's in his book Liberation Management notes "Thinking of an
organization as an entity standing on its own is dysfunctional in today's
strange, fast-moving, interlinked world." Peter Keen, in Strategy and Stucture
puts it like this: "...telecommunications has eroded the boundaries between
firms and changed the nature of coordination across geographic locations."
Peters (p 380) asks that we try imagining organizations as "frolicking
rolodexes." His point is that we need to concentrate more on relationships what
he describes as ROIR (return on investment in relationships).
Richard Crawford states in his book: In the Era of Human Capital that:
In the knowledge economy, burearcracy will increasingly be replaced by
adhocracy, a holding company that coordinates the work of numerous temporary
work units, each phasing in and out of existence according to the rate of change
in the environment surrounding the organizationi. The adhocracies of tommarrow
will be staffed by employees who are capable of rapid learning (in order to
comphrehend novel circumstances and problems) and imaginative thinking (in order
to invent new solutions). These men and women will participate in small teams,
cross-disciplinary teams, partnerships, and quality circles.
Note: probably need something on Quantum Physics....
There are numerous examples of how technology has been described (also explained
and soldd) to the public through metaphors. The Mac, for example, with its
famous "desktop" screen. The images on the screen are designed to look like the
top of a desk. Why? Becauase that's a familiar object. It conveys information
without being technical.
New words:
Relativity Ratio: when one person's idea of what objectively appears to be the
same thing is actually radically different. My idea of being wealthy. Maybe a
better word for this is SEMANTIC DISSONANCE
INFOLECTUAL: you ask someone how to copy a file and they insist on explaning how
the whole computer works.
"The life channel of the information age is communication. In simple terms,
communiction requires a sender, a receiver, and a communication channel. The
introduction of increasingly sophisticated information technology has
revolutionized that simple process. The net effect is a faster flow of
information through the information channel, bringing sender and receiver closer
together, or collapsing the information float--the amount of time information
spends in the communication channel...The combined technologies of the
telephone, computer and television have merged into an integrated information
and communication system that transmits data and permits instantaneous
interactions between persons and computers...We have for the first time an
economy based on a key resource that is not only renewable, but self-generating.
Running out is not the problem, but drowning in it is."
John Naisbitt,
Megatrends
The greatest crises facing modern civilization is going to be how to transform
information into structured knowledge.
Carlos Fuentes
The Five Ways of Organizing Information
Category
__________
Time
__________
Location
__________
Alphabet
__________
Continuum
__________
Source: Richard Saul Wurman, Information anxiety
Giving good instructions is an art that recognizes the complex, ephemeral,
unpredictable nature of communication. Yet few realize the complexity of giving
good instructions. Companies spend billions of dollars on research and
development of new products with sophisticated features, then write instructions
for them as an afterthought." Wurman (98)
Those who know that they are profound strive for clarity. Those who would like
to seem profound to the crowd strive for obscurity.
Nietzsche, The
Gay Science
Just as eating against one's will is injurious to health, so study without a
liking for it spoils the memory, and it retains nothing it takes in. Leonardo da
Vinci.
People remember 90 percent of what they do, 75 percent of what they say, and 10
percent of what they hear...(140)
Who learns by finding out has sevenfold the skill of he who learned by being
told. Arthur Guiterman
The way we make sense out of raw data is to compare and contrast, to understand
differences.
Gregory Bateson
To grasp the words on a page, we have to know a lot of information that isn't
set down on the page.
E.D. Hirsch, Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know
Notes form Critical thinking for Science....
The word explanation comes from the Latin explanus to lie flat.
"Explaining something means placing a new concept (something that seems random,
unrelated, or confusing) into a familiar or older context, thereby expanding
that context. This gradual expansion of contexts constitutes learning." (p 127)
The philosopher of language, I.A. Richards even went so far as to say that
thought itself is metaphoric. Richards is expanding our conventional view of
metaphor from that of primarily a figure of speech to an explanation for our
thinking processes.
Other scholars have also elaborated on metaphor's relation to thought.
Kittay states the following:
Metaphor is a primary way in which we accommodate and assimilate
information and experience to our conceptual organization of the world. In
particular, it is the primary way we accommodate new experience. Hence it is at
the source of our capacity to learn and at the center of our creative thought
(39).
Kittay's comments regarding metaphor as the "source of our capacity to
learn" are particularly interesting in their implications for talking about
technology. It appears that metaphor offers a connective capacity to thought--a
form of linkage--whereby two discrete thoughts are brought into unison, or
categorized, under the same rubric, where before they were disparate concepts.
Metaphors, therefore, are knowledge condensers, in that they provide a
linguistic condensation of words and ideas. Metaphors provide an economy of
words, not only in the sense that Samuel Johnson meant when he said that
metaphors give you two ideas for one, but in that metaphor provides a way for
someone conversant in technology to give names to things that have no names.
Naturally not all metaphors mean the same things to the same people.
People have dispositions that lean toward certain types of metaphors. For
example, Kathryn Carter's research on perception in relationships notes that in
the discussion of relationships, men tend to use economic metaphors, whereas
women tend to use gardening metaphors. Women were more likely to use terms such
as tending, nurturing, growing; men were more likely to describe relationships
in terms of costs, benefits, trade-offs and losses, and were more likely to
"rank" or "rate" the relationship (Spitzack and Carter, 412). It may be that
people have what I call a metaphoric disposition: a conceptual framework built
up around a certain category of metaphor.
Metaphors that match the listener's disposition may accommodate the
acquisition of new data. A person with a "mechanical" metaphoric disposition
might be able to learn more effectively when concepts are framed in mechanical
type metaphors. An algebraic equation might be described as "a scale," or
English composition could be taught with expressions such as: "construct an
outline by building your main ideas on top of your thesis statement."
The
concept of metaphoric disposition may partly explain why analogies do not always
work when we talk about technology; we may be using metaphors and analogies
that suit our own dispositions, rather than our students.
You may be thinking that the world of technology demands exact
terminology. Metaphor belongs to the realm of poetry, not technological
discourse. Metaphor is inexact, vague, and has ambiguity compared with the
exactness of scientific names and nomenclature. To the contrary, I would argue
that literal language is metaphor in camouflage. In the infinite number of
details that exist in the world, no language could possibly provide a complete
description of reality. Metaphor begins the process which eventually leads to
the creation of literal language.
The second way in which metaphors and communicating about technology are
highly related is the means by which both are involved with the ways in which we
perceive and categorize information about the world.
Metaphor helps us to make sense of highly complex information by giving
us a means of categorization.Through categorization, we are able to simplify
events and are thus able to cope. We may not be understand disk operating
systems, but we can certainly deal with a file cabinet.
Find that quote from Huxlwy re curing the bewilderment of the mystery
NOte: HUxley quote: "We need to have the facts of science tinged with emotion
before they can become fully valuable for us in emotional terms." (11)
When a hurricane is viewed as a sign that the gods are angry, the mysterious
power of nature is thought to be understood.
Walter Lippman (1971) describes the ways in which we reconstruct the
environment on a simpler model to deal with the utter complexity of the real
environment. Lippman's use of the word "model" is crucial to understanding the
role and relationship of metaphor to categorization. As Hall puts it, "People
are very closely identified with their models, since they also form the basis
for behavior" (1976, 11). Indeed, a model is a metaphor, both serve the same
function cognitively in the individual and culturally in society. The
importance of studying models is aptly described by Hall when he says: Studying
the models that men create to explain nature tells you more about the men than
about the part of nature being studied" (1976, 12).
A Difference That Makes a Difference
That's how Gregory Bateson defined information. A string of seven numbers
are simply data unless they happen to be your phone number--then they are
information. A difference that makes a difference. All too often, when
explaining technical concepts we neglect to inform our audience how what we are
saying makes a difference. We assume they will see the technical sophistication,
and appreciate high technology just because it is high technology. This is not
the case. People need to be told of the importance of what they are learning.
How does it fit into the context of their everyday lives? Just why is it so
important? If you neglect to spell this out, they will think that you are
excited about technology for technology's sake--hardly a reason for them to
listen to you.
KatKathleen considered herself a true technophobe. She avoided anything
resembling high tech gadgetry. It wasn't until she found herself in charge of
the computer network department that she realized she would need to radically
change the way she thought about technology if she were going to continue to
have a job. At first she made key friendships with some of the "techies" at
work. She committed herself to learning more about Technology.She was awkward at
first, and then she discovered...
Define Personal Relevance
Start by pointing out the value to the listener
Beauty and attractiveness
To truly pay attention to anyone for prolonged periods of time, it helps
to have a common sense of aesthetic taste. It's not that the speaker has to be
attractive, although that can help (and possibly even distract). What's more
important is not to offend the aesthetic sensibilities of the listener.
There is the aspect of physical-visual beauty(note the almost instinctive
impulse to "dress-up" for a speech. It's largely a question of ethos (get that
quote from the UNIX book).
Just as there is beauty in the physical appearance of the speaker, all the
accompanying artifacts of the presentation must be taken into account as well.
Are the visual aids attractive? Is the room attractive? Are the handouts
attractive? But not only that, is the construction of the presentation
appealing? An argument can be a thing of beauty. A good presentation is
appealing to the ear in an aesthetic sense, just as a good piece of music is
appealing.
What is more important than the presence of beauty, is the distinct
absence of anything repelling to your listeners. You must ask yourself,"is there
any aspect of my presentation that could offend the aesthetic sensibilities of
my audience?" It's like a job interview: you don't have to be wearing a thousand
dollar suit, but you must absolutely not have tomato stains on your shirt.
Rhythm
THe source of irritation in interpersonal matters often comes down to an
incompatibility of rhythm in the everyday discourse between people. You succeed
with communication most when youare communicating with someone who has a pace
that matches your own. YOu know the feeling of talking to someone who has a
slower rate than your own--you must pause, re-explain things and so on. A good
analogy is driving on the freeway. The only cars that present a problem to you
are those whose rhythms differ too much from your own. The cars that go too fast
are a bother, as are the ones who slow you down.
People who laugh at your jokes are of course much more enjoyable to be
around than those who do not. They are also more in tune to your rhythm. Isadora
Duncan once said, "If I had to say it I owuldn't have to dance...get exact).
Can you adjust to the rhythm of your listener? Not too fast, not too slow.
Rhythm has much in common with beauty. If you can match yourself
harmonically with the natural rhythm of your listeners, they will tend to "tune
in" and stay tuned in. If your pace if off they will drift away. No one likes to
listen to a monotone speaker.
Speakers don't always realize that they have a duty to be more upbeat than
their audience. You must be at least as upbeat as the most upbeat member of your
audience. If you are not, you will lose them. Cultivate an emotional barometer
that continually seeks to identify the emotional climate of your audience. You
must stay at and a bit above their highest level.
In our culture's obsession with content in communication, we often
overlook the importance of paralanguage. Those of us who are good with
technology also tend to emphasize content over form, substance over appearance.
However, most of the world doesn't think that way.How you say things has a
stronger initial effect on your audience than what you say. The sound and rhythm
of your voice is crucial.
There is also a rhythmic exchange between the speaker and the audience.
All too often we think of a presentation as a one way flow from the speaker to
the listeners, but this image is false. There is a continuos interaction, back
and forth. Not just in terms of audience questions, but in the fluctuating of
attention. IN some ways a speech is a lot like AC current between two
connections. It appears to beflowing in one direction, but in actuality the back
and forth motion is so continuos that it just appears that the current is moving
in one direction. Deborah Tannen once said "communication is a continuos.find
quote.
?ONCE said that a relationship occurs the moment you are aware of someone who is
also aware of you. IF I am directly aware that you are aware of me, we have a
relationship of sorts. Thus,simply seeing someone on the bus does not mean you
have a relationship, but if you look at someone and see that they are looking
directly at you, you have a relationship.
In order to follow this argument, let us examine the diffusion process of
information. Imagine a car wreck on the corner of Third and Broadway. The
instant the wreck happens, the only ones who are aware of it are the two
drivers, and any cars in the immediate vicinity. The cars block traffic, and
gradually cars approach the traffic jam and become aware that an accident has
taken place. The closer the cars are to the actual accident, the more
information they have (those in front can see the extent of the damage, whereas
the cars further away may simply know that "an accident" has taken place up
ahead. Eventually, someone calls the police and the information has spread to
even more remote locations.
Now the fact of the accident--it's physicalness does not change in any
way. It happened under a given set of circumstances regardless of whether two or
two hundred people observed it.
Is the information moving, or are people moving to the information? I
would suggest that information is approached and interpreted by the
participants. Information itself is static, it does not leap out at individuals,
it must be caught by those doing the seeking.
Proximity...communication is a combination of sensory input
What we must call into question is the whole notion of exchange in
communication. The normal definition of exchange doesn't fully apply to the act
of communicating. If I hit you and you hit me, we have exchanged blows
add more specific examples...Bob was a sysop and JIm worked but didn't
understand dos...etc.ANALOGIES FOR COMMUNICATION
Besides paying more attention to your listeners and gaining a better
understanding of how communication works, the next way you can help talk about
technology is to improve the way you organize y our presentation of information.
ORGANIZATION OF INFORMATION
How you organize technical information plays a big role in how well you
are understood. You need to organize the information into an appropriate pattern
prior to the attempt to relay that information. There are a variety of ways this
can be done:
A.
Historical- It is often appropriate to describe a subject in
terms of
its history. For example, if you were making a
presentation about celluar
phones, you could start by
explaining how phones have evolved over time. This
provides
your listeners with a stronger frame of reference.
B.
Geographical- Most technical subjects can be organized around
a model
of the thing itself. This is the "show and tell"
approach. If you are
talking about computer hardware, show the
hardware itself. Explain how
each part works from top to
bottom (or whatever direction makes the most
sense).You can
also use illustrations that serve as "maps" of the product
itself.
C.
Formula- A clever method of organizing information around the
letters
of a key word. For example someone once gave a speech
on the topic of
listening that centered around the word HEAR
(Helpful, Empathic, Attentive,
and Responsive). Each letter represents a subtopic for your presentation. This
is a great memory device.
D.
Five W's and H- Arranging your material in terms of who, what,
where,
why, when, and how. Rudyard Kipling's famous friends can always aid you in
organizing information.
E.
Topical- Breaking your main topic into subtopics makes a
presentation
much easier to follow. Instead of speaking for an hour on "selling," break it
down into manageable subtopics
such as "prospecting for clients," "gaining
the attention of clients," and so on.
F.
Comparison/Contrast- Just as a photograph with contrast
attracts our
attention, contrasts and comparisons help make ideas more vivid to your
listeners.
G.
Use the Familiar to illustrate the new-
In summary, when you speak about technical matters you must place more
attention on your listeners than you would in ordinary discourse. Not only must
you take their prior experience with your subject into account, you must find a
way to make a connection between the ideas you are presenting and those ideas
that are already established in their minds.
NOte: INclude something about Wurman's categories of organizaing information:
Two points to remember: 1. Realize that your audience will never "get"
your exact meaning. They are limited by their imagination and the similarity of
their experiences. Under the best circumstances, they can only make a fairly
accurate guess as to what you are talking about. This guess can never be exactly
100 percent accurate.
2. No one understands a new idea in a vacuum. Understanding is accomplished
through a process of comparing the old with the new. Your job as a communicator
is to enhance this process. There are many ways to facilitate understanding:
1.
2.
3.
Pay more attention to your listener.
Choose examples that are relevant to the listener.
Encourage interaction. It's not just those students who ask
questions who learn the most; those students who ask questions
only ones learning!
4.
Appeal to as many senses as possible: visual, tactile, etc.
5.
Use analogies (the two types:literal and figurative).
are the
The whole notion of interdependence is onethat we often take lightly. ONce you
seee how completely dependent we are on each other it makes an astounding
difference in the ways in which we communicate. A relationship has a life of its
own because at least two individuals are looking after it. In essence, all a
group does is simultaneously hold a relationship together. If any one idvidual
falls off, there is always at least someone else there to keep it together. Now,
this does not always apply in cases like a partnership or intimate relationship.
If one person ends a partnership, the partnership is over. But the general idea
is that both are maintaining it. We have a system of checks and balances
The heart has its reasons of which the reason knows nothing. Pascal
If I could say it, I would not have to dance it. Isadora Duncan
Linear Comprehension: Straight ingestion of content based information in a
literal sense
Contextual comprehension:
Relata comprehension:(Metaphoric Comprehension):
DeMetaphorizing:
Faulty analogy spotting:
Learning role-reversal reaction:The phenonoma that you learn best by teaching
(self persuasion)
The concept of the "useful background": laying a context for new information.
Imitation:
Metaphor sheet: _____ is to ______, as ______ is to ________.
The Awareness field or the awarness set...
INFOCENTRISM: DEf: the phenonomen whereby a person who is secure in his or her
knowledge assumes that others are as well (on given a subject
The exasperation of trying to explain a concept to someone who won't get it
after three times....Most of us have a limit of patience of three...one time
fine two timescool three times four times out the
door.Explainintolereance...infoanger...angerarticulation, flusteration,
explichaustion, exhaustplication,
the state of being able to self learn.Note this is always limited......see
horatioalgerism.
The mistaken belief that nothing is to be learned (huge barrier to learning)
(must be some good quotes on this)
the degree of willingness to face what new things life will present to us. An
innocence of knowing that we have the world to learn about, the opposite of
infocentrism.
euhemerism(interpretation of myths as traditional accounts of historical persons
and events.
Cooperation (see the Scientific American Article)Maybe also something about the
prisoner's dilemmaWinStay LOse shift...tit-for tat
Although the metaphor of hitting a target isn't in fact accurate, it does work.
The tendency to overexplain and thus lose the person
The questions we need to address concerning communication are: what are
the essential aspects of communication which make it possible? How do these
aspects interrelate so as to make meaning?
First of all, let us attempt to define the process of communication in
terms of the public arena: Communication is the rhythmic, coordinated sharing of
redundancy. Its key components are : 1. beauty. 2. redundancy. 3. The lack of
ownership of the message itself.
Redundancy in terms of survival
Why have twin motors aboard an aircraft? If you have only one of anything, when
you lose it you lose it for good. It's true for computer files, races of people,
species, friendships, as well as aircraft engines.
Let's examine the process of explanation. If I am explaining sg to you that you
don't know I run smack up against the redundancy factor. If I say, "Hw ar
yu?",you will most likely be able to put it together. You fill in the gaps. But,
at some point it breaks down. For example, the word "Internet" could
progressively break down as follows: Internt, Intrnt, Intnt, Itnt, Int...There
is a point at which your ability to recognize the word "Internet" breaks down.
Uniform Conformity, the Princliple of:
The world of fiction leads us to the heart of the real world of action.
Paul Ricoeur
All forms of human communication need to be seen fundamentally as stories.
Walter Fisher
Rhetorical experience works by identification rather than demonstration.
Walter Fisher
What is true of poetry is true of all creative thought.
Jacob Bronowski
All science is the search for unity in hidden likenesses.
Jacob Bronowski
The best things cannot be said; the second best are misunderstood. After that
comes civilized conversation.
Joseph Campbell