The story contradicts itself. The author describes at length the process he had to go through to decode this supposedly clear communication. The one person without a vested interest in the formula (his wife) just found it puzzling and annoying. Besides, it's obvious how to communicate the information "I've been in an accident, but I'm ok" straightforwardly.
I kept hoping that the story would turn out to be a clever parody of the father's pet theory by an impudent son. That, as anyone who has been mercilessly imitated by offspring knows, is what children are made for. But no such luck.
It reminds me of a book I read years ago by a psychologist who used to insist that people (including his children) speak in active tenses so as to take responsibility for things. Instead of saying, "The milk got spilled," one should say, "I spilled the milk," and so on. He knew he had gone too far when his 8-year-old came in soaking wet one day and said "Sorry Dad. I guess I rained all over myself."
This kind of thing appeals to technical people who like algorithms for things and want algorithms for human interaction. But that's a category error. Engineers who really want to get better at communication would get further by paying more attention to their audience (and themselves).
That's a breakdown in the kid's/family's communication. It is simple to say, "I walked in the rain." It conveys the exact same piece of information--I'm wet because it was raining outside, and I was outside without something to keep the rain off of me. There are numerous other ways to say the same thing without sounding backwards.
By the way, using active instead of passive language really does change one's thinking and foster responsibility. I've found it to yield pretty rich rewards, and the whole subject is fascinating. Similarly, beginning a status meeting with a one-sentence summary, then proceeding to details, can be quite effective. But when people focus on the trick rather than the substance, it doesn't work anymore. And the OP is an example of that. A car accident is not a status meeting.
Thank you for sharing the example of the kid who "rained all over himself", it clearly shows that exceptions apply.
When I give research updates, I basically follow this format. I don't give a long explanation of what I did, leaving people guessing at the outcome, and only at the end presenting my numbers and finally, my conclusion. I state my conclusion first, the numbers I have to back up that conclusion, then go into why I think these numbers are correct (what I did).
I believe most people dislike giving status reports so having a formula that keeps them short and to the point seems like a good idea to me.
This is in an academic setting, by the way, and that advice was given from the chair of my department to someone in my research group who was prepping for an interview talk at a government lab.
Switch over to the real world where 'cheating' becomes 'teamwork' and problems are discovered rather than verbosely outlined. Communication becomes the face of your reputation. While the ability to deliver may be the heart, no one can see it without closer inspection.
I'd love to receive feedback about this process. What has worked for you?
