• The means of communication used can fail, malfunction, or bottleneck.

Sometimes the methods we use include superfluous "enhancements," such as Flash or Real Player files embedded into Web pages. Taking information in that way takes extra time; some will avoid it altogether, so no information is passed on at all.

• The information you read/hear may not be the truth.
• Even truth carries a "tax" -- the views, desires, and products of those communicating it. It's not objective.
• Even "untaxed" truth is not exhaustive -- there are points of view you may never see.
• Communications methods don't provide clear instructions on how best to use them to be understood.
• Science (and sometimes engineering too) doesn't really address "good" and "evil" or "right" and "wrong."
• More effort spent on digesting communication means less on actual observation of behavior.

  We can be overwhelmed with information. We're forced to make choices about what we'll process -- and even in the process of deciding we've eliminated some possibilities. Information we may need to make the "right" decisions we may never see.

• What we tell others about what we've done only differs from what was done elsewhere because we're doing the telling -- it's not that we're lying; it's just that we're not unique.

If we want others to put forth an effort to understand us when we communicate, we must make it as easy for them as possible:

• Don't assume we must do things a certain way (especially a more complex way) simply because we can. Keep it simple.
• Let the form of our communication be chosen to complement the content, rather than to overwhelm it. (C. S. Lewis says that evils come in pairs of opposites; the opposite problem of form ignorance can be just as bad for us.)

Likewise, for us to "read between the lines," there's no need for us to assume others don't want to communicate with us. There are plenty of problems to go around for those who do.

Lessons from Political Communication

In order to convince others, you are sometimes called upon to communicate an incomplete version of events. (That's assuming you know the complete version.) You emphasize what you see as important and ignore what's not important -- and what works against you.

The truth -- the whole truth -- will seldom work in your favor if it's unpleasant. (You learned this in your childhood, unless you never hid from your parents a mess you made.) On the other hand, if the audience already knows the truth, it will do you no good to deny it.

You can know the truth without knowing all about it. The more detail you communicate to your audience, the more opportunity you give your audience to find problems with your argument. The details -- even when they're not important -- raise the red flags.

The audience is always biased. Not necessarily against you, or against your argument, but towards itself. Listeners are in favor of whatever benefits them, and that includes but is not limited to

• taking as little action as possible
• spending no more money than necessary
• looking good for the boss or customers
• finding the most comfortable seating position
• getting out of the meeting at least on time, if not early
• being entertained as long as they have to be there

among other things, and not necessarily in this order.

Again, the whole truth will seldom work in your favor if it's unpleasant. The unpleasant truth must therefore be communicated gently. If your manner is also unpleasant, it won't matter how right you are -- your audience will find reasons to tune you out. Or worse.

References

Feynman, C & M. The Pleasure of Finding Things Out. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books, 1999. ISBN 0-73820-108-1
Florman, S. The Civilized Engineer. NYC: St. Martin's Press, 1987. ISBN 0-31202-559-9
Stengel, R. "What I learned." Time, 11.13.2000.