Re: Dialogue
[From Rick Marken (2007.06.05.1210)]
Bjorn Simonsen (2007.06.05,20:25
EUST)–
Martin Taylor 2007.05.06.10.12
What does “meaning” mean to
you?
That’s not a frivolous question. It embodies the PCT mantra
"all
behaviour is the control of perception" as applied to
communication:
"All communication is the control of the perception of the
other
partner".
All? Isn’t that exaggerated?
I’ll say!! This is virtually never true. Communication
can’t
possibly be the control of the perception of the other partner
because
one can only control their own perceptions.
Obviously my attempt to control my perception of you by my action
of writing about the meaning of “meaning” was
unsuccessful.
If I rephrased it as “ALL communication is the control by
each partner of their own perception of the other partner”, would
that help? Will I now perceive that your understanding comes closer to
my reference for it than it had been?
And to Bjorn: No, it’s not exaggerated, any more than is
“All behaviour is the control of perception.” It’s just a
specialization of that claim to a situation in which the controlled
perception includes something about another person.
Bjorn says: “But I think what other people call
communication often is “listen to me” talk.” I
think I understand you, and if I do, it makes my point in respect of
the meaning of “meaning”. The meaning of a “listen to
me” action is something like “I’m more important than you.”
The words are a meaningless carrier signal, in that it doesn’t matter
to the talker how the listener understands them. The listener,
however, may not perceive that the talker is not controlling for the
listener’s understanding, so, to the listener, the words are not
meaningless. The “communication” is then not cooperative.
The talker wants to get across that he is more important than the
listener, whereas the listener wants to understand the apparent
content of what the talker is saying.
Bjorn also says: “One of the parts or both must give up
in the something in a conflict using dialogue. I propose HPCT and MOL
as a better technique.” This has to do with conflict, not
with dialogue. It’s irrelevant to the question of “meaning”.
Anyway, my treatment of dialogue is strict HPCT, if that matters. By
the way, in case it wasn’t a simple typo, you mean
“parties”, not “parts”.
Back to Rick:
You can hope to
influencing the perceptions of someone else by controlling certain
perceptions but you certainly can’t control someone else’s
perceptions because, in order to control perceptions, you have to
perceive what you are controlling, and you can’t perceive someone
else’s percpetions.
True in the abstract, and true if you mean “you can’t be
absolutely sure you know what someone else is perceiving”. But
it’s not true that you can’t imagine what someone else perceives, and
often be fairly accurate in doing so. The ability to do that with
moderate success is called “empathy”, and is essential not
only for communication, but for all social interaction. In cooperative
communication, each partner is controlling some perception of what the
other is perceiving, and more particularly, is controlling for a
perception that the other perceives the originator’s meaning to have
been correctly understood by the recipient.
I’m sure what Martin meant to say
was ""No
communication is ever the control of the perception of the
other
partner". But, then, I can’t control
Martin’s perceptions;-)
Though you often try…
Even if you had written “by the other partner” I would
not agree this to be a correct statement. Communication is often an
attempt to bring another person’s perception of something to a state
you would like it to be. For example, I might want you to perceive me
to agree with you on something, and to do that I try to determine what
you think about it and communicate to you that I think the same. Your
actions (words or otherwise) help me to perceive whether I have
succeeded. It’s called “feedback” and is part of any control
loop.
Perceptions are built, at least in part, on data taken in by the
senses. My actions (communicative or otherwise), at least those you
can detect, are part of the data on which you base your perceptions.
If I am a good communicator, I can modify your perceptions of a lot of
things. I can determine, with moderate accuracy, how well I have
succeeded in bringing your perceptions to where I want them to be by
observing your actions, especially if you happen to be controlling for
perceiving me to know what you are perceiving in respect of the topic
of communication. It’s sometimes called “the Test”.
That doesn’t work if you are being uncooperative (not controlling
for a perception that I perceive you to have taken my meaning – being
indifferent–, or controlling that perception but at a different value
– being deceptive).
Martin