You’d probably agree that too much has already been written and ‘communicated’ about communication. Thus, I will focus only on the gist of things.
Physicist and philosopher Heinz von Förster* states that being able to maintain the illusion of successful communication and understanding in our interaction is quite a miracle. What we intend to communicate is rarely conveyed successfully, and subjective “interpretation” always seems to come in the way.
When it comes to ‘communicating, let’s start exploring these questions:
Depending on the bonding patterns we have learned and on the behavioral automatisms we have developed, we have also developed preferred patterns of intent for communication and preferred patterns of interpretation for communication. Thus, communication tends to take an interesting course, where those involved in the action of communicating, might have mirrored reflections. Below we can look at possible assessments made by all parties ‘communicating.’
Assessments made by one party:
Assessments made by the other party: (notice the similarity)
If you notice, this perspective presumes the absence of any “objectively perceptible“ communication.
All parties involved in the communication process seem to have “their say” in it!
It looks like everyone has authority!
So, who is the person surrendering to the communication process then? The classic “you don’t understand me“, or the common, “the employees/my partner/the other simply don’t get how important that is“ presumes that:
Can you see the irrationality of these assumptions?
I invite you to write down your own answers, reflect, and maybe relieve yourself of the pressure of the idea that ‘great communication’ exists.
Please write me directly with your suggestions or contact me on my social media.
*Austrian American physicist and philosopher, widely attributed as the originator of Second-order cybernetics.