Communication
Communication is what happens when one Person attempts to transfer a thought, observation, or idea to another Person.
This seems simple enough, but as we have seen with Words, the tools we use to communicate are slippery. A lot can go wrong between "I have a thought" and "you understand my thought."
Several models have been developed over the years to map how communication works. We will start simple and build up.
The Basic Model
The simplest model of communication involves a Sender and a Receiver.
The Sender has something to communicate — a thought, an observation, an impulse, an idea. This "something" is often the result of some internal process: the Sender noticed something, figured something out, or wants something.
To get this "something" out of their head and into the Receiver's head, the Sender must:
- Use a Language to encode the thought into a Message
- Transmit the Message through a Channel
The Receiver then:
- Receives the Message from the Channel
- Decodes the Message using their understanding of the Language
- Processes the Message
This basic model was developed by Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver in 1948, originally to describe electronic communication. It applies equally well to human communication.
Channel Types
Not all Channels work the same way. The method by which a Message travels from Sender to Receiver has significant implications for how the Message is received and understood.
Direct Channels
The Sender and Receiver share a moment in time. The Message travels directly from Sender to Receiver with minimal intermediary processing.
Examples:
- In-person conversation
- Phone call
- Live video call
- Live presentation
Properties:
- Immediate feedback possible
- Ephemeral (unless recorded)
- Noise is typically environmental or perceptual
Indirect Channels: Direct Storage Access
The Sender encodes the Message into Storage. The Receiver consults that Storage directly, at a time of their choosing.
Examples:
- Written letter
- Book
- Billboard advertisement
- Voicemail
- Email (retrieved directly from mailbox)
Properties:
- Time-shifted (asynchronous)
- Persistent (can be consulted repeatedly)
- Feedback delayed or impossible
- Noise can include storage degradation
Indirect Channels: Interface-Mediated Access
The Sender encodes the Message into Storage. An Interface processes that Storage and presents a version to the Receiver.
Examples:
- Social media post (algorithm determines if and when it appears in feed)
- News article (editorial decisions about coverage and framing)
- Search results (algorithm determines ranking and inclusion)
- Database-driven website (queries determine what displays)
- Content recommendation systems
Properties:
- Time-shifted and processionally filtered
- Persistent in Storage but presentation varies
- Interface makes decisions about selection, ordering, framing
- Receiver may not be aware of Interface processing
- Feedback must travel back through Interface, or route around it
When Storage is consulted through an Interface, the Receiver is no longer accessing the Sender's message directly.
The Interface sits between Storage and Receiver, making decisions about what to show, when to show it, and how to present it.
This introduces an additional processing step — and as with any processing step, there is opportunity for the Message to be altered, filtered, or contextualized in ways the Sender did not intend.
The Receiver may believe they are accessing the original Message, but they are actually accessing the Interface's presentation of that Message.
Whether this matters depends on the Interface's transparency, the Receiver's awareness, and the stakes of the communication.
Noise
The Channel is rarely clean. There is often Noise — disruption that interferes with the Message.
Noise can be literal: static on a phone line, a loud room, a bad internet connection.
Noise can also be more subtle: the Receiver is distracted, the Sender mumbles, the Message is ambiguous.
Noise means that what the Receiver receives may not be exactly what the Sender sent.
The Feedback Loop
The basic model is one-way: Sender transmits, Receiver receives. But real communication rarely works like that.
Before the Receiver fully processes the Message, there are opportunities to check understanding. This is the Feedback Loop.
The Feedback Loop can operate at several levels:
- Message Confirmation
- Was the message received at all? "Did you get my email?"
- Direct Meaning Clarification
- Were the words understood? "When you said 'tomorrow,' did you mean Tuesday or Wednesday?"
- Abstract Meaning Clarification
- Was the underlying meaning understood? "Are you asking me to do this, or just letting me know it's an option?"
- Implication Clarification
- Are the consequences or expectations clear? "If I don't respond by Friday, what happens?"
Each level is a checkpoint. If clarification is needed, the loop cycles back — the Receiver becomes a Sender, asking for clarification, and the original Sender becomes a Receiver.
Broken Telephone Problems
Communication rarely involves a single Sender and Receiver. Messages get relayed, summarized, quoted, responded to, and built upon.
Direct Channel Relaying
Even in Direct Channels, Messages get passed along. When Person A tells Person B something that Person C originally said, Person B is not receiving Person C's Message directly — they are receiving Person A's encoding of their interpretation of Person C's Message. Person A becomes an Interface.
Interface-Mediated Chains
In Interface-Mediated Channels, an Interface might aggregate Messages from Storage that was itself populated by another Interface consulting another Storage, and so on. Each step introduces another layer of processing.
An Example
Consider this scenario:
- Building owner posts maintenance notice in lobby: "Annual fire alarm testing scheduled for Thursday, March 15th, 9am-11am. Alarms will sound periodically. No evacuation required."
- First-floor tenant glances at notice while checking mail, mentions to second-floor tenant in elevator: "Hey, heads up — fire alarm testing coming up soon."
- Second-floor tenant (generally anxious about disruptions) tells their roommate that evening: "Ugh, they are doing fire alarm testing soon. It is going to be so loud and disruptive."
- Roommate (working from home, slightly dramatic) texts friend in building: "FYI building is doing emergency fire alarm testing — gonna be chaos with all the noise!"
- Friend (who skims messages quickly) reads "emergency fire alarm testing" and "chaos" and tells you: "The building is doing some kind of emergency fire testing today — I think I need to find somewhere else to work this afternoon."
What happened:
- "Thursday, March 15th" became "soon" became "today"
- "Annual testing" became "emergency testing"
- "Alarms will sound periodically" became "chaos"
- Each person filtered through their own disposition and added their own interpretive layer
- Nobody was lying, but by step 5, the Message is completely transformed
The original Sender intended: routine, scheduled, minor inconvenience.
The final Receiver understood: urgent, immediate, major disruption requiring action.
At each step, the Message was re-encoded, filtered, and contextualized. Details were lost. Emphasis shifted. Personal interpretation colored the transmission. By the time the Message reached the final Receiver, the connection to what the original Sender intended was tenuous at best.
The more steps between original Sender and final Receiver, the more opportunities for drift, distortion, or unintentional alteration.
Practical Application
Most communication failures are not about bad intentions. They are about the gap between what the Sender meant and what the Receiver understood.
The Sender encodes using their Nature and Nurture. The Receiver decodes using theirs. These are rarely identical.
Add to this the slipperiness of Words, the presence of Noise in the Channel, the possibility of Interface processing, and the risk of daisy-chain degradation, and it becomes clear: Communication is fundamentally unreliable without active verification.
The Feedback Loop exists to close that gap — but only if both parties use it.
When receiving a Message, particularly through an Interface or from someone relaying information from elsewhere, consider:
- Did the Sender say this directly, or is it coming through intermediaries?
- If through an Interface: What decisions is that Interface making about what to show?
- Can this be verified with the original Sender directly?
- What would need to be asked to confirm understanding is correct?
This is not paranoia. It is recognition that communication is a complex system with multiple points where Messages can degrade, drift, or transform. Verification is how the gap gets closed.
