'Effective communicators' there's the rub!

[coberst]

‘Effective communicators’ there’s the rub!

 

 

‘Effective communicators’ there’s the rub; how does one communicate with an unseen audience that can be anybody in the world. In face-to-face communication there is so much information about the audience at hand that does not exist on the Internet.

 

Does one use language for the 12 year old, or the 18 year old, or the 25 year old, the educated, the non-educated? How to speak coherently to the 12 year old while not infuriating the 18 year old and how to mold an essay for the 30 year old without losing the 18 year old.

 

People who write books have editors to act as a third party who understands the material and understands the anticipated audience.

 

How do I, who have been studying the matter at hand for months and even years, know what words to provide a parenthetical definition that some may need but others may consider to be condescending?

 

Anti-intellectualism (opposing or hostile to intellectuals or to an intellectual view or approach) is so prevailing in the United States that almost every reader has a strong anti-intellectual bias that they are completely unconscious of. This anti-intellectual bias constantly inhibits their effort to read anything that smacks of being ‘intellectual’.

 

People might pay me money to lecture them on the proper way to swing a golf club but to lecture anyone on matters intellectual is pompous (excessively elevated or ornate—having or exhibiting self-importance).

[Eclogite]

‘People might pay me money to lecture them on the proper way to swing a golf club but to lecture anyone on matters intellectual is pompous (excessively elevated or ornate—having or exhibiting self-importance).

There appear to be three plausible strategies:

 

1. Dumb down the message.

2. Go all out for pomposity; reek of erudition; eschew obfuscation; promulgate intrinsically heirarchical presentational methodologies; intertwine metaphorical and literal aphorisms in a concatenation of syntactically rigid, yet semantically fluid strictures.

3. Keep it simple; keep it direct; keep it relevant.

 

I vote for number three.

[coberst]

There appear to be three plausible strategies:

 

1. Dumb down the message.

2. Go all out for pomposity; reek of erudition; eschew obfuscation; promulgate intrinsically heirarchical presentational methodologies; intertwine metaphorical and literal aphorisms in a concatenation of syntactically rigid, yet semantically fluid strictures.

3. Keep it simple; keep it direct; keep it relevant.

 

I vote for number three.

 

I agree that number three is the course to take.

 

Now I would appreciate it if you would vote on this OP and any other of my OPs to grade it or them as to how well I have done.

 

I would appreciate an analysis but if that is not possible then just a thumps up or down would be worth while to me.

 

Or perhaps you might take a paragraph and write it as you would have liked it to be written.

[Eclogite]

I thought your OP was fine as far as it went: it's just that I wasn't sure where it was meant to be going.

 

The individual paragraphs were well written, for the most part. They hung together well. They were clear and sometimes evoked an excellent mental image. However, I was not entirely sure what the underlying theme was.

 

Now, my reply seemed to make sense to you, therefore, it seems I understood what your underlying point was. Frankly, however, I was not at all sure when I wrote the reply that I was getting anywhere near what you were thinking about. For that reason I almost didn't bother replying.

 

Also, where you said "How do I, who have been studying the matter at hand for months and even years," I was not clear what 'the matter at hand' was. That remains true even now (I think you mean the matter of effective communication, but I also think you may mean the topic that would be under consideration in a hypothetical debate. That ambiguity gets me very frustrated and even angry. Now, while that is a reflection on my personality, I think you can see it could also impact on your desire to communicate effectively.)

 

I hope that is of some use to you. [Please note that in my reply I think I have failed to deliver on at least two of the objectives: simple and direct.]

[ughaibu]

In my experience, threads in which the contributors attempt to deal with several points per post, tend to flounder. I try to stick to a maximum of two points of reply. It would be interesting to investigate the question of proportionality of number of points of reply with total length of correspondence before resolution.

[coberst]

Thank you for your response.

 

I have seen so much anti-intellectualism in America that I have become extra sensitive to it. I also see it as a danger to our cherished democracy. I also see it as endangering our ability to learn. It is something I fight against at every opportunity.

 

When I write an essay that I post it is often the result of much study and thought. I am a self-learner and as such I seek not just to know but to understand. I consider understanding to be the creation of meaning. I often write short essays in the process of study because it helps me to understand what is lacking in my knowledge. I think that writing is very important to understanding.

 

So my posts are the result of a lot of effort and I may lose perspective as to what others might comprehend in this matter that I have been living with for a long time. When I lose this perspective I might not recognize a word that has become so common to me is not common to the reader.

[coberst]

In my experience, threads in which the contributors attempt to deal with several points per post, tend to flounder. I try to stick to a maximum of two points of reply. It would be interesting to investigate the question of proportionality of number of points of reply with total length of correspondence before resolution.

 

How to write about something that most people are not conscious of without using metaphors and analogies is difficult. Most of the time I am trying to raise the consciousness (focuse the mind) of the reader to something that I think is important and which I think most readers are not conscious (focused in the mind) of.