On Effective Communication
Effective communication is, at its core, the art of conveying ideas from one mind to another with maximum precision. Ideally, one would like to transmit exactly the thought that is in one’s head so that the recipient understands it completely as intended. In practice, however, several factors—such as the limitations of language, the context of the conversation, and the differing interpretations of abstract concepts—interfere with this ideal.
The Trade-Offs: Precision, Compression, and Practicality
When communicating, we constantly balance three main parameters:
Precision: Precision refers to how exactly the communicated message matches the intended thought. In an ideal scenario, every nuance of a thought would be preserved. In scientific writing, for instance, high precision is prized because it minimizes ambiguity. However, even science has its limits; for example, theories about events before the Big Bang are necessarily imprecise since they address aspects we do not fully understand.
Compression: Compression is the process of conveying complex ideas in fewer words. High compression can make language elegant and efficient. However, overly compressed language may sacrifice precision. For example, using a single term that carries multiple meanings might streamline a message, but if the audience does not share the same definition, the meaning may be lost or misunderstood.
Practicality: Practicality is about tailoring the communication style to the audience. When speaking with children or casual acquaintances, one might sacrifice some precision in favor of simplicity and ease of understanding. In contrast, detailed explanations with precise vocabulary might be necessary in academic or philosophical discussions—even if this means that the message becomes less accessible to a general audience.
The best communication strikes a balance among these three factors. In everyday conversation, most people prioritize practicality over absolute precision. However, when discussing complex ideas—such as philosophical concepts or scientific theories—it becomes essential to choose words carefully, sometimes even preface or define them to avoid misinterpretation.
Context and the Role of Audience
The effectiveness of communication depends heavily on context. For example:
Everyday Situations: When discussing mundane topics (like describing the color of a car), most people share a common understanding of the language used. There is little need for elaborate definitions.
Abstract or Complex Ideas: When ideas are abstract (such as the nature of “good” or the experience of success), differences in personal interpretation become more significant. Phrases like “the feeling of success” can be highly subjective, leaving room for varied interpretations. Here, it might be useful to provide examples or analogies—even though doing so may reduce compression—to help clarify the intended meaning.
Specialized Discourses: In contexts such as scientific reports or philosophical debates, precision becomes paramount. Even then, effective communication may involve a trade-off. For example, a speaker might choose to use compressed language if they assume a shared, precise understanding with their audience; yet, if that shared understanding is absent, the message may lead to misunderstandings.
Examples and Observations
One illustrative example comes from my reflections on discussions involving Jordan Peterson. In some contexts—such as his remarks on climate change—Peterson’s language is highly compressed. He delivers his ideas in a compact form, assuming that his audience will fill in the details. In contrast, when discussing topics like the Bible, he often dissects every word to clarify its meaning. This difference in approach shows how the balance between precision and compression can vary according to the subject matter.
Consider also how definitions can lead to miscommunication. Imagine that I invent a language that uses familiar English words but assigns them radically different meanings—for instance, where “good” means “bad” and vice versa. If I say “I love evil” in my language, a listener who interprets the word “evil” in its conventional sense might think I am endorsing wrongdoing. In truth, my redefined vocabulary might make “evil” a positive concept. This example underscores the importance of shared definitions and the potential pitfalls of ambiguity.
The Ideal World of Communication
One might imagine a hypothetical “ideal world” where every person communicates with maximum precision. In such a world, ideas would be transmitted exactly as intended, and misunderstandings would be minimized. Misinterpretations—often the root of debates, conflicts, or even violent disputes—would be rare because everyone would share the same definitions and contextual understandings.
However, the reality is far from ideal. Differences in language, personal experiences, and context mean that even if two people hold the same core ideas about existence or morality, slight variations in how they articulate these ideas can lead to significant misunderstandings. This is especially true when dealing with abstract topics where the precision of language is paramount.
Each individual's ideas are shaped by accumulated experiences and the knowledge they gain over time. When we engage in open, rational dialogue, contradictory or unsupported ideas are systematically challenged and refined—much like the peer-review process in science. Through this iterative process, diverse perspectives gradually align, paving the way for a common understanding.
It might be argued that the inherent subjectivity of experience and the exercise of free will ensure that complete convergence is unattainable. Personal biases, emotional influences, and cultural differences could perpetually obstruct total agreement.
While individual differences are inevitable, the process of argument and counterargument works as a natural corrective mechanism. By continuously questioning and refining ideas, the collective discourse gradually minimizes discrepancies, much like tuning an instrument until it produces harmonious music.
Imagine argument and counterargument as two hands tuning a musical instrument. At first, the strings (ideas) may be out of tune. Through persistent adjustments—tightening and loosening—the instrument eventually produces harmonious notes. In the same way, through debate and thoughtful critique, our ideas are refined until they resonate with shared truth.
Social Contracts, Deceit, and Free Will
If two individuals fabricate a social contract—stipulating, for instance, that neither shall steal from the other—even if neither has ever experienced malice, any breach of this pact can only be attributed to the exercise of free will. Such a deviation is not a failure of logic but a demonstration that human behavior is ultimately governed by the capacity to choose. When one party acts against the verbally agreed norm, it is a conscious decision to alter the parameters of the contract, revealing the inescapable influence of personal will.
Logic, Questions, and the Role of Free Will
Consider this reasoning: "If everyone knows logic, then either no one will be confused or everyone will. Everyone will be confused only if we try to believe a contradiction. Everyone knows logic. Therefore, if we don’t try to believe a contradiction, then no one will be confused."
This thought experiment underlines a key point: questions are not solely born from rational inquiry. Often, they arise from the deliberate exercise of free will—the decision to challenge or modify an established parameter. By questioning a prevailing idea, we assert our ability to control its mutable aspects, transforming inquiry into a manifestation of creative freedom.
The Dynamic Nature of Ideas
It follows that when one party in a social pact unilaterally decides to change a previously agreed parameter, the resulting breach may lead the other to perceive deceit or moral weakness. This is not simply a breakdown of logical consistency but a testament to our intrinsic free will. While some ideas must evolve—driven by the imaginative urge to explore beyond established limits—others are preserved through consensus and rational debate. Practicality, as seen in engineering, often demands action over endless hypotheticals; an engineer must eventually build a paper plane rather than remain trapped in perpetual debate over its design.
Conclusion
Effective communication is a delicate interplay of precision, compression, and practicality. Through deliberate argumentation—embracing both claim and counterargument—we navigate the intricate landscape of ideas, refining our collective understanding much like tuning a delicate instrument. Despite the inherent challenges posed by free will and subjective experience, continuous dialogue helps to align diverse perspectives toward a shared truth. In the end, it is this balance—adjusted through reasoned debate and creative exploration—that paves the way for a more harmonious and rational society.