undefined | Better HN

0 pointsivanbakel3y ago0 comments

That presumes that communication is just about people understanding the thing you are trying to say, rather than the transfer of thoughts, ideas, and opinions.

Put another way: the only thing that you can verify when communicating that the sky is on fire is that the other party knows you think the sky is on fire. Whether or not they think the sky is on fire, or whether they think you're blowing hot air, is pretty inscrutable. If they don't agree with you, they're still likely to not show it because you (to them) are a neurotic hothead who they don't want to upset.

The only truth in what you manage to communicate to people is the effect it has on how they act. In other words - they can't tell you anything! They can only show you.

0 comments

MichaelZuo3y ago

Methods such as reviewing their work, observing their actions without them knowing, testing them in some form, literally sitting behind them, etc..., will quickly reveal someone's true disposition towards whether the 'sky is on fire', regardless of what might be said.

At least I've never heard anyone that could convincingly fake such a big difference under focused observation, assuming the verifier is competent.

For example, veteran car mechanics can tell in a minute when someone's never worked on a car in their life, just by asking them to do an oil change, or some other quick task.

And they can easily and reliably differentiate the folks who only occasionally work on cars vs those who regularly do with a half hour of observation in the shop.

ivanbakelOP3y ago

I agree - as I said, you can see the results in the actions of the other party. But those are all techniques beyond communication: none of them allow you to verify, in the moment, whether or not the other person has "understood" you in the sense of agreeing with what you have to say.

The idea of verifying after communicating is in line with the original article, and the comment by outworlder. What do you think they failed to consider?

MichaelZuo3y ago

> But those are all techniques beyond communication: none of them allow you to verify, in the moment, whether or not the other person has "understood" you in the sense of agreeing with what you have to say.

Huh?

To clarify, in my example of the veteran car mechanic assessing someone's proficiency, there's no set-up required, they can verify it 'in the moment'.

No special or unusual tools or environmental conditions are needed to conduct verification.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsivanbakel3y ago0 comments

That presumes that communication is just about people understanding the thing you are trying to say, rather than the transfer of thoughts, ideas, and opinions.

The only truth in what you manage to communicate to people is the effect it has on how they act. In other words - they can't tell you anything! They can only show you.

0 comments

MichaelZuo3y ago

At least I've never heard anyone that could convincingly fake such a big difference under focused observation, assuming the verifier is competent.

For example, veteran car mechanics can tell in a minute when someone's never worked on a car in their life, just by asking them to do an oil change, or some other quick task.

And they can easily and reliably differentiate the folks who only occasionally work on cars vs those who regularly do with a half hour of observation in the shop.

ivanbakelOP3y ago

The idea of verifying after communicating is in line with the original article, and the comment by outworlder. What do you think they failed to consider?

MichaelZuo3y ago

Huh?

To clarify, in my example of the veteran car mechanic assessing someone's proficiency, there's no set-up required, they can verify it 'in the moment'.

No special or unusual tools or environmental conditions are needed to conduct verification.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse