Communication Between People
I think it might be something in between... The talker is partly responsible and the listener is partly responsible.
I don't know too much about internet hardware, but consider modems. They have a message they need to send, and it's their responsibility to make sure their message is sent using a protocol that the receiver can understand.
If the message successfully reaches another modem, it can be demodulated and understood. If, because of some sort of mix up, the message happens to get sent to a telephone, the telephone won't be able to understand the original message. It tries to make sense of it, but if someone picks up the telephone and listens, it's just a jumble of odd sounds.
So, in the world, modems are efficient at communicating with modems, telephones are efficient communicating with telephones, radios are efficient at communicating with radio transmitters.
Communication is possible cross platform, you can make phone calls over the internet, access the internet on mobile phones, etc., but it's most efficient between devices of the same type.
Maybe different kinds of people just naturally communicate better, and less effort is required on the part of the communicator to make his or her message understandable. Whether the listener is compatible with the communicator is luck... I don't know though, I'm just thinking out loud.. -_-
Your analogy is flawed. Modems and telephones can exchange information if both ends understand the same protocol, just as humans can exchange information if they speak the same language. Speaking the same language is a shared responsibility. I learned English so I could talk to people who do not speak Dutch.
However, we were talking about human communication, which is much more complicated than the exchange of bitstreams that our electronic devices are capable of. To a machine "see you later" is always the same information, but in human exchange it can have many meanings, depending on how it is delivered. I can say "see you later" to my girlfriend in a way that implies we'll have a fun night ahead of us or I can give it a cold and bitter "I really hope we never cross paths again" undertone when delivering it to someone who ruffled my feathers in the wrong way.
So, there is the information ("see you later") and there is the intended message ("to make love tonight" or "stay out of my life!"). It is, in my opinion, the responsibility of the sender to ensure that the intended message comes across with the information.
First, I want to say that I agree with both of them, but I feel compelled to color this tangential dialogue with some of my own knowledge.
To those of you who like academic/technical papers, see A Mathematical Theory of Communication (don't know how long link will stay up). I won't be discussing this here, except to borrow its fundamentals.
To start, let's agree on a couple terms.
Language, n., a vocabulary (or collection of meaningful combinations of an alphabet) with a grammar (or a set of rules restricting how said vocabulary may be used).
Interestingly, this definition includes bitstreams, cultural dialects, programming languages, and even body language. I'll explain: a bitstream is made out of 1s and 0s. That's the vocabulary. Its grammar is what Jim calls the "information protocol".
So, to review, let me restate Jim's response:
"Human communication is more complex than bitstreams because there is more than text in a statement."
And of course, he is absolutely right. Where I feel he makes a mistake is in his conclusion: saying that it is the responsibility of the sender to ensure that the message comes across properly. Except, again, he's right.
Paradox got your brain yet? Let me link you again, this time to Wikipedia, to the OSI Model. The OSI model is one of the basic pieces of knowledge for people who are advanced Internet geeks. It explains the relationship between electrons and Firefox, and why the electrons can come down a copper wire, by emitting photons through fiber optic, or transmitted through the air.
Don't try too hard to understand it. There are two essential things to know. The first is this: each layer doesn't care how the information got to it, as long as the information works.
Human beings work much the same way. A smile uses a different language than a few words, but they can achieve the same effect. Why? Because we don't care how a message is delivered, just as Firefox doesn't care whether or not the sending server is running on Windows or Linux.
The second thing to learn from the OSI model is this: a failure can happen at any level.
For instance, if your ethernet cable is cut, then no more internet for you. However, what if the problem was on the presentation layer or network layer? Have you ever seen a webpage that just looked really, really weird? Or a file that was "corrupted"? It was probably an issue on one of those layers; your ethernet cable is probably fine.
Take the analogy back to human beings.
My lips, tongue, and vocal chords work just fine. I can say, "See you later," or "Have a good day,". That's fine, and you'd understand it. Similarly, I can say, "Hatta Nen," or "Layene Lan Lawe." Do they mean the same thing? How should you know? (I don't.) If your tongue were cut out, though, you'd have a real problem. How do you deliver your information?
Well, you could use a different physical means: such as your hands. That's the essential understanding of the OSI model.
Back to the analogy.
The purpose of a sender's brain is to take an intention and transform it into electrical signals down our nervous system into our muscles. We move parts of our body to achieve expression.
The purpose of a receiver's brain is to take that expression, transform it back into electrical signals that are reassembled in the brain and matched against memories and patterns to derive an intention.
This process is not at all unlike the purpose of a modem. But it is, as Jim said, much, much more complex. Why?
The reason is that modems are designed by people who have talked to one another, agreed upon a standard, and built everything carefully so that modems are efficient communicators.
Let me repeat that: the purpose of a modem is to efficiently communicate.
Human beings are not efficient communicators. Why should we be? Modems don't learn from each other: they just transform one pattern into another pattern. But human beings do.
We need this difficulty in communication: that's how we learn.
So, now that we understand the frozen-in-time model, let's let the river flow and see where it takes us.
How do you communicate with someone?
Well, let's stick to the analogy. How does the OSI model work? It's fairly straight-forward: starting at the Application layer, you have a piece of data. You walk down the stack, adding some extra information as you go, until you reach the bottom. It transfers, then it goes up the stack, stripping off the extra information until it gets back to the top.
Now, the brain does essentially the same thing. We begin with an intention, like, "I'll see you tonight. I love you. That shirt looks awesome on you, but I can't wait to take it off." Now, we wrap it in cultural connotations, history of interpersonal relationship, symbolism, and language until it gets to our body, whereupon we deliver a squeeze on the shoulder, a lewd glance and a sultry, "See you tonight, lover."
You try that on someone you don't know and you'd probably get slapped.
But wait a second. What's all that stuff I mentioned about culture and relationships and symbolism? Obviously, the important bits. :p
The key to successfully communicating with someone is to fail to communicate with them. At first. What? Remember: we're talking about time, here.
A failure to communicate is an opportunity for learning. In order to successfully communicate, you have to learn. For instance, squeezing someone's shoulder might not signify affection: it might signify threat. You have to know that. The glance might be misinterpreted as criticism of their taste in fashion. The sultriness might be received as subtle mockery.
What you need to know is, for this individual, which is true? You learn that by developing a personal history, understanding their culture, their background, what's important to them, etc., etc....
In short, all that stuff you learn while spending time together. You have to take advantage of all those moments to learn this stuff, and every time you get a better grasp, you get better at communicating. Every time you make a mistake, you have an opportunity to do better.
And that's why human beings aren't just bitstreams.
Because we learn. And in doing so, change. Constantly.
I don't know too much about internet hardware, but consider modems. They have a message they need to send, and it's their responsibility to make sure their message is sent using a protocol that the receiver can understand.
If the message successfully reaches another modem, it can be demodulated and understood. If, because of some sort of mix up, the message happens to get sent to a telephone, the telephone won't be able to understand the original message. It tries to make sense of it, but if someone picks up the telephone and listens, it's just a jumble of odd sounds.
So, in the world, modems are efficient at communicating with modems, telephones are efficient communicating with telephones, radios are efficient at communicating with radio transmitters.
Communication is possible cross platform, you can make phone calls over the internet, access the internet on mobile phones, etc., but it's most efficient between devices of the same type.
Maybe different kinds of people just naturally communicate better, and less effort is required on the part of the communicator to make his or her message understandable. Whether the listener is compatible with the communicator is luck... I don't know though, I'm just thinking out loud.. -_-
Your analogy is flawed. Modems and telephones can exchange information if both ends understand the same protocol, just as humans can exchange information if they speak the same language. Speaking the same language is a shared responsibility. I learned English so I could talk to people who do not speak Dutch.
However, we were talking about human communication, which is much more complicated than the exchange of bitstreams that our electronic devices are capable of. To a machine "see you later" is always the same information, but in human exchange it can have many meanings, depending on how it is delivered. I can say "see you later" to my girlfriend in a way that implies we'll have a fun night ahead of us or I can give it a cold and bitter "I really hope we never cross paths again" undertone when delivering it to someone who ruffled my feathers in the wrong way.
So, there is the information ("see you later") and there is the intended message ("to make love tonight" or "stay out of my life!"). It is, in my opinion, the responsibility of the sender to ensure that the intended message comes across with the information.
First, I want to say that I agree with both of them, but I feel compelled to color this tangential dialogue with some of my own knowledge.
To those of you who like academic/technical papers, see A Mathematical Theory of Communication (don't know how long link will stay up). I won't be discussing this here, except to borrow its fundamentals.
To start, let's agree on a couple terms.
Language, n., a vocabulary (or collection of meaningful combinations of an alphabet) with a grammar (or a set of rules restricting how said vocabulary may be used).
Interestingly, this definition includes bitstreams, cultural dialects, programming languages, and even body language. I'll explain: a bitstream is made out of 1s and 0s. That's the vocabulary. Its grammar is what Jim calls the "information protocol".
So, to review, let me restate Jim's response:
"Human communication is more complex than bitstreams because there is more than text in a statement."
And of course, he is absolutely right. Where I feel he makes a mistake is in his conclusion: saying that it is the responsibility of the sender to ensure that the message comes across properly. Except, again, he's right.
Paradox got your brain yet? Let me link you again, this time to Wikipedia, to the OSI Model. The OSI model is one of the basic pieces of knowledge for people who are advanced Internet geeks. It explains the relationship between electrons and Firefox, and why the electrons can come down a copper wire, by emitting photons through fiber optic, or transmitted through the air.
Don't try too hard to understand it. There are two essential things to know. The first is this: each layer doesn't care how the information got to it, as long as the information works.
Human beings work much the same way. A smile uses a different language than a few words, but they can achieve the same effect. Why? Because we don't care how a message is delivered, just as Firefox doesn't care whether or not the sending server is running on Windows or Linux.
The second thing to learn from the OSI model is this: a failure can happen at any level.
For instance, if your ethernet cable is cut, then no more internet for you. However, what if the problem was on the presentation layer or network layer? Have you ever seen a webpage that just looked really, really weird? Or a file that was "corrupted"? It was probably an issue on one of those layers; your ethernet cable is probably fine.
Take the analogy back to human beings.
My lips, tongue, and vocal chords work just fine. I can say, "See you later," or "Have a good day,". That's fine, and you'd understand it. Similarly, I can say, "Hatta Nen," or "Layene Lan Lawe." Do they mean the same thing? How should you know? (I don't.) If your tongue were cut out, though, you'd have a real problem. How do you deliver your information?
Well, you could use a different physical means: such as your hands. That's the essential understanding of the OSI model.
Back to the analogy.
The purpose of a sender's brain is to take an intention and transform it into electrical signals down our nervous system into our muscles. We move parts of our body to achieve expression.
The purpose of a receiver's brain is to take that expression, transform it back into electrical signals that are reassembled in the brain and matched against memories and patterns to derive an intention.
This process is not at all unlike the purpose of a modem. But it is, as Jim said, much, much more complex. Why?
The reason is that modems are designed by people who have talked to one another, agreed upon a standard, and built everything carefully so that modems are efficient communicators.
Let me repeat that: the purpose of a modem is to efficiently communicate.
Human beings are not efficient communicators. Why should we be? Modems don't learn from each other: they just transform one pattern into another pattern. But human beings do.
We need this difficulty in communication: that's how we learn.
So, now that we understand the frozen-in-time model, let's let the river flow and see where it takes us.
How do you communicate with someone?
Well, let's stick to the analogy. How does the OSI model work? It's fairly straight-forward: starting at the Application layer, you have a piece of data. You walk down the stack, adding some extra information as you go, until you reach the bottom. It transfers, then it goes up the stack, stripping off the extra information until it gets back to the top.
Now, the brain does essentially the same thing. We begin with an intention, like, "I'll see you tonight. I love you. That shirt looks awesome on you, but I can't wait to take it off." Now, we wrap it in cultural connotations, history of interpersonal relationship, symbolism, and language until it gets to our body, whereupon we deliver a squeeze on the shoulder, a lewd glance and a sultry, "See you tonight, lover."
You try that on someone you don't know and you'd probably get slapped.
But wait a second. What's all that stuff I mentioned about culture and relationships and symbolism? Obviously, the important bits. :p
The key to successfully communicating with someone is to fail to communicate with them. At first. What? Remember: we're talking about time, here.
A failure to communicate is an opportunity for learning. In order to successfully communicate, you have to learn. For instance, squeezing someone's shoulder might not signify affection: it might signify threat. You have to know that. The glance might be misinterpreted as criticism of their taste in fashion. The sultriness might be received as subtle mockery.
What you need to know is, for this individual, which is true? You learn that by developing a personal history, understanding their culture, their background, what's important to them, etc., etc....
In short, all that stuff you learn while spending time together. You have to take advantage of all those moments to learn this stuff, and every time you get a better grasp, you get better at communicating. Every time you make a mistake, you have an opportunity to do better.
And that's why human beings aren't just bitstreams.
Because we learn. And in doing so, change. Constantly.