The Communication Chasm
Confidence Spectrum: 90%
I
Language is quite remarkable.
It defines the boundaries of your world. We use it to think about tangible, *objective* things as well as abstract notions like 'justice', 'satisfaction', or 'progress'. All of our thoughts are rooted in language. What would a thought look like if it's not rooted in words? In theory, we probably had some rudimentary form of consciousness as a child before language acquisition, but I certainly don't remember what crawling around the world in that state was like.
But marking the boundaries of our individual world isn't the most remarkable thing about language. Its true value is its ability to connect two minds together.
Take text (like this!) as an example. It never ceases to amaze me that a series of markings and lines on a paper (or a collection of pixels on a screen) can elicit such strong changes in someone else's thoughts, behaviors, beliefs, etc. When I write and you read, it's literally the information of my brain being transferred into yours.
But its not raw information being transferred.
It gets warped and twisted along the way because everyone's mental model of the world is unique. The ineffable meaning behind what a series of words means to me never 100% overlaps with what it means to you. Words depicting abstract concepts ('faith', enlightenment', 'science', etc.) are particularly prone to this problem. By the time an idea is conceived, cast out into the universe, received by someone else, and imported into their unique mental framework... how much of the original idea remains?
Quotes are a good example.
'Care about what other people think and you will always be their prisoner'.
What this means to me surely differs from what it means to you. Even if we both agree this series of squiggles carries some sort of wisdom, we need a fair amount of inquiry to parse out exactly what our understanding of it is. This is why tests in school ask the same question in multiple ways. Zen Buddhist Masters are notorious for asking their pupils obscure (seemingly absurd) questions to see if they 'really' understand what they are being taught. All this extra confirmatory work is required because it's not easy for ideas to go from one brain to another without being really distorted along the way.
I'm calling this inherent defect in the way we communicate the Communication Chasm. There are 2 categories of problems that happen when trying to cross the Communication Chasm.
First, two people may actually agree (or be essentially in agreement because fundamental agreement would be impossible to pinpoint) with each other but this gets lost in translation. This is a false negative.
The other type of problem that occurs is a false positive. I.e. two people don't actually agree, but think they do.
These examples are the parts of the Communication Chasm that are unavoidable - even when everything else is running as smoothly as possible. But there are other modifiable aspects of the Communication Chasm that are often making the gap even larger. For example, we could add in what people hear.
Particularly with polar topics, listening doesn't happen. 'Learning to listen' isn't taught in childhood. It's something that's reserved for therapy sessions, self-help books, and the quasi-religious spiritual gurus. Which is a shame because learning to listen is pretty important. The Communication Chasm is wide enough as is. How much confusion and backward progress could have been avoided if a skill as simple as listening was more encouraged on a societal scale?
To summarize the Communication Chasm: we have the author's understanding of things, compressed into a mutual form of communication (i.e. language). Some of that message is heard by the recipient. That partial message is then imported into the unique World Perspective (beliefs, understandings, thoughts, etc.) of the recipient. This whole cycle is repeated when the recipient responds by compressing their ideas into a mutual form of communication, only some of which is heard, etc., etc.
Sounds foolproof right?
II
Let's turn the heat up a notch. So far we've been dealing with small statements. But now imagine that we aren't dealing with one, but a long series of statements - like a book (or blog post). The margin for error here is a lot larger. Yet, in real life, this is what we do on a daily basis. We naturally import and export entire constellations of ideas during the flow of a casual conversation; and we do a pretty good job at it too.
For example, when I ask someone to 'pass the salt', they scan the table, find the salt shaker, and send it my way; I've never had anyone respond to 'pass the salt' by fetching me a fishing rod and breaking out into song.
On one level, this isn't surprising. But on another level, I find that fascinating.
That was a low bar though. So here's some better evidence that we normally cross the Communication Chasm pretty well:
Multiple people can watch the same movie and take away common themes
Science produces replicable facts that lead to space travel, genetic technology, and (most importantly) Wi-fi.
You can mime your way through a foreign country without knowing the native language
Laws (which are entirely made up) create some ground rules in the public sphere which are broadly understood.
You can (hopefully) make some sense of this blog post.
So although there are lots of opportunities for miscommunication across the Communication Chasm, we seem to naturally do a decent job crossing it. So why does it matter?
Because we are so good at crossing it unconsciously, we forget it’s there. Because we forget it’s there, we go along assuming we are communicating with no packet-loss. When we assume everything is getting perfectly transmitted, it's easy to become frustrated when the other person disagrees or doesn't understand. When we're frustrated, we lose some of our capacity to skillfully cross the Communication Chasm. This sparks a positive feedback loop between miscommunication and emotions with only one conclusion: confusion.
But if we recognize there is a large chasm between us, we are less prone to getting so confused and frustrated. The false positives and false negatives depicted above aren't surprising; they're expected. It's hard to be frustrated at a person on the other end of a phone call that has spotty reception. When the reception sucks who is actually mad at the other person? When we remember that communication is less saying the same thing over and over until it works, and more a back and forth dance of figuring out how to best transmit your idea, it redirects frustration away from the other person and towards the actual culprit - the Communication Chasm itself.
As frustrating as the chasm can be, it’s the only method we have to connect with other minds. The only way to learn from others and the only way to share with others what you've learned. On a philosophical level, we need the chasm to keep our minds separate. If there were no chasm, we'd be a giant conscious mush. The fact that this chasm exists is what keeps you unique.
So instead of ignoring or resenting the chasm, the best thing you can do is learn to consciously navigate it. Doing so is one of the most surefire ways to predictably succeed in life. Success can be defined however you want - social justice, finding meaning, accumulating wealth, etc.. Regardless, success follows the people who are the best at communicating their ideas, not the people with the best ideas. When stuck in your head, a good idea is no better at helping you succeed than a bad one.