Communication: A 3-Part Concept
A spider and a fly will seldom see eye-to-eye. But when communication hits an obstacle between two people who care about each other and want the same things, what tends to get in the way?
I propose that communication between two compatible communicators can be divided into three (3) distinct parts. For our purposes here, let us define a pair of compatible communicators to be two people who have an existing relationship, not currently stressed by factors external to the conversation in question.
Examples of compatible communicators in this scenario include couples (under normal circumstances), siblings, coworkers, friends, and reliable, known family members.
Examples of relationships not compatible enough for this analysis could include a strained parent-child relationship, a boss-and-employee relationship, a couple undergoing the stress of a pregnancy or move, or a person speaking with an acquaintance.
The three parts of communication include (1) the Communicator, (2) the Message, and (3) the Receiver.
The Communicator
The first component is the communicator, the messenger, the speaker or the writer. This is the person communicating a message.
This individual has a thought, or an idea, or a question – some cohesive thought or conglomerate of related thoughts – that they wish to express to another person. The words are swirling around in their head, collecting on their tongue and eager to be delivered.
Is the communicator’s message, in the communicator’s own opinion, something harmful or laced with ill intent? Between two compatible communicators, no. Two people with an existing relationship who seek the same things should not ever use their words to hurt the other person.
So why, then, does this appear to happen sometimes?
The Message
The second component is where we have ample room for error. The message is what was actually delivered by the communicator. Think of it as something completely distinct from the person. A detective investigating a failed communication is blind to intention, but can collect quotes and transcripts all day. What might the message, then, consist of?
Spoken Message
If the communicator is using speech to express themselves, then the message is what they delivered. It is their words, yes, but it is also their tone, their volume, their facial expressions (all measurable / capturable, as by a camera or recorder), and lastly the context in which it is delivered. Context is more difficult to measure, and is the piece that may be invisible to an observer of the message – sometimes even to the recipient themself.
Written Message
A communicator expressing themselves across distance using technology must write their message. The elements of the message then become the words, the grammar and punctuation (and emojis, if any), and the context.
If you have ever received a peculiar text message from someone you trust, then you know from experience that context can be invisible even to the receiver. With fewer elements to read from (no tone, no volume, no facial expressions), and with context less clear, written communication often holds the door open to doubt or second-guessing of intentions. If a written communicator is blasé about grammar and uses no emojis, then the receiver may truly be in the dark if there is any room for misinterpration in the verbiage.
The Receiver
The third and final piece of the communication structure is the receiver. This is the person being spoken to by the communicator, or the recipient of the written message. Who receives the message is so much more than a detail of the communication.
This is because the receiver is a human being. Humans have consciousness, memories, regrets, aspirations, fears, and oceans of nuance between. Their relationship with the communicator perhaps the most influential factor of all.
The message itself is meaningless – trivia, hanging in the air – until it is interpreted by the receiver. The receiver, depending on their level of attention at the time of the communication, will have received most or all of the elements of the message. Words, tone, grammar, (known) context – all of these are loaded up and catapulted through the brain of the receiver.
This person will understand the words, yes, but unknowably many factors may color the message.
- “I am so happy for you,” delivered with a scowl. A message painted with doubt.
- “I’m thinking of fostering a cat,” but you don’t know my own cat was diagnosed with cancer. The message is painted with a hue of sadness, and the speaker does not know.
- “That’s a nice dress, it suits you,” but you made fun of the one I wore last week. I paint your message a shade of “you’ve got some nerve,” and the recipient expects the communicator knows how tactless they come across - even if they don’t.
Posthumous Argument Analysis
If two compatible communicators have an argument over something that one of them said, then these two people owe it to each other to assess where a misunderstanding may have occurred. For clarity of mind, it is typically best not to attempt this during or immediately after an argument, but rather once tempers have cooled.
Almost all of the time, a misunderstanding between two compatible communicators with no ill will toward each other occurs because 1.) the message sent does not match the message intended by the communicator, or 2.) the message was interpreted by the receiver in a way the communicator did not intend.
It is worth revisiting the message, and the communicator explaining their thoughts. “I wanted you to know X, so I said Y.” “I had a question about Z, since we know I did it wrong last time.” “I intended to give you a compliment; I mean it.”
The communicator, freshly aware of their intent, may review the message. Is there a text to pull up? Do either the speaker or the listener recall the exact words spoken, or can the listener acutely recall the tone or facial expression and most importantly how it made them feel at the time?
Lastly, the receiver should be willing to share how they interpreted the message. “I was exhausted and I don’t think I heard that part of what you said.” “You literally rolled your eyes when you said it.” Or, “the text just seemed so dry, I assumed you were mad about something.”
The breakdown of communication may have nothing to do with the casual examples provided, but they illustrate the point. If misunderstandings are occuring between two people who have no good reason to be at odds, then it is so worth it for the betterment of the relationship to learn why intentions fail to deliver, or why goodwill is interpreted as something different.
As a final point: human beings should strive always to be a better version of themselves. If your intended message has a pattern of being misinterpreted, then it could be tremendously beneficial to work on your own communication skills. If you have a habit of interpreting the worst possible meaning from someone, then you owe it to them and to yourself to find why that might be. Is there an unaddressed stressor on this relationship? Or is there a confidence deficit that has you always braced for the next hit, even from people who would never intentionally put you down?
In the examination, you strengthen your bond with this other person. You learn more about yourself, and about the other person. Seek to understand, to improve, but never to self-deprecate or accept miscommunication as a personal trait. Communication is a lifelong skill, and sometimes the most important relationships require customized communication styles. Because we are, all of us, different. And that is great.