Words are Hard

Communication is among the most important skills to master. This is regardless of one’s occupation or place in the world. Unless someone lives in a cave alone, they’re going to need to know how to effectively communicate.

And, how to receive those same communications effectively.

Communication allows multiple entities to interact and exchange information. That information could be as basic as a series of grunts or chemical bursts that signal “Food here!” or as complex as an article explaining what communication is using an online format to display a series of symbols that denote a corresponding meaning.

A message can be communicated through every sense; sight, sound, touch, smell, and taste. Fortunately, people rely on sight and sound to communicate for the most part. Unfortunately, we are equally capable of misunderstanding the information relayed. We often ascribe a meaning to something that is entirely different from what the author originally intended.

Communication, all types of communication, is extremely subjective when the human element is involved. Nurture beats out nature in this regard.

Take for example the sentence “Look, it is a bitch.”

What do you read from that sentence?

Could I be identifying a female dog in a litter of puppies? Am I casting disparaging remarks toward a woman across the street? Maybe I was explaining to someone how difficult a situation is? Can you even tell if/where the inflections would be or where my emphasis was? Does the sentence feel weird to you because I didn’t use the contraction it’s?

Short of two computers blasting binary code at each other, the content and intensity of a message can be up for debate.

A person’s personal experience and beliefs can radically alter how information is viewed. Even their access channel to the information can change the information.

Assuming all things are equal and all information presented to someone is factual due to altruistic tendencies, which is far from the case in today’s era, a person’s beliefs and biases determine not only how information is received, but if that person will even allow the information to be received.

For example, I would rather read cave paintings from 40,000B.C. than let the contents of the National Enquirer assault my eyes. My personal belief is that everything they write only holds value when it is used to line a hamster cage. I don’t even give them the benefit of the doubt and say, “Maybe this time it’s not all made up sensationalist crap.” I’m biased toward them because I am trained to rely on established, vetted news organization for my news. I became that way through positive reinforcement. I look to places like the BBC to provide me with valid information, and then to have the information proven to be correct and timely. Because they proved to be dependable and relevant to me, I continue to use them. It’s a cycle.

However, the medium I use to get information, even information I trust, is also subjective. When I want to learn something from the news, I will read full articles in papers or from their websites or occasionally watch television. I don’t use Twitter or other social media. There are two reason for this.

The first reason is due to the format that the information is constrained to. A tweet can only be so long and detailed. Social media is its own monster. Quantity is valued more than quality. Get the first tweet. Be the first on the scene of breaking news. He who speaks loudest wins. Oversight be damned!

If the sun were to explode, it would take approximately eight minutes for Earth to notice. I like to think whatever is happening in the world can also afford eight minutes to ensure all information is correct, professional, and appropriate. But again, this comes back to personal bias.

The second reason I avoid social media and other trending formats is because of their very nature. When someone looks at any media online, whether it’s a book on Amazon, video on YouTube, or anything really, that person is not a passive observer. They are proclaiming to the internet that what they are looking at, whatever it may be, holds value and interest to them. They are invested in that. That information is supremely valuable to advertisers and other entities that live and die on the merits of spreading their word.

So, what does this mean?

To put that into perspective, assume you’re massively invested in saving the whales. You click on a story about saving the whales whenever you see it. Eventually after enough clicks, an algorithm begins to build a picture of what you are. Soon, more things related to saving the whales begin to pop up in your Facebook account and elsewhere. These things may make you happy and they may make you angry, but they are always somehow related to whales or conservation.

This is both good and bad. It’s good because you are getting more information related to what you are interested in. It’s bad because unless you are aware of this, you can become blind to other sources of information and viewpoints. You stagnate, for lack of a better word.

This is not a good thing.

When you become totally invested in certain information and the channels you receive it through, you will at best begin to disregard information that is not aligned with what you expect. At worse, you will become outright hostile to the information and those who create and compile it. This latter result is how America finds itself as a nation where journalists become derided, threatened, and hunted for simply having chosen to follow that calling.

The only way to realize this, is to stop and ask yourself why you are looking at your information and why you accept. Is what you are reading there because it’s the most important thing to have happened and everyone is definitively going to be affected? Or is it only important to you? Realize these are not mutually exclusive however. They can overlap. Also consider what your information source has to gain by presenting this data as opposed to other data. Conflicting or otherwise.

Don’t blindly disregard alternative sources of information because they don’t align with your beliefs. At the same time, don’t unquestionably accept information that comes from channels you are comfortable with. Let the content of their character and the merit of their work earn your trust or your hate. Walking directly toward one side forces you to turn your back on the other. It’s only by taking a step back that the entire picture can be viewed.

That being said, we are only human. And I’m still never going to pick up a National Enquirer unless I need to start a fire.