Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Conversation : Traps and Bypasses

Essence of conversations

A Quality ( observational ) of Human Brain

 We all live in our own halos. We have a picture perfect images of things, real and abstract.
These images are almost always splits into two ends. The one that we have is 'postive' and other end that we manufacture on comparison with the first,. If the comparison matches then it is merged into the 'positive' end by the brain and if it does not then a separate end 'negative' is created.
This inevitablyy  means that if there is a postive end then there is bound to be a negative end. 
and there are always infinite number of 'postives' lying active or dormant in every human !

Having known this,  we ae trying to figure out if there is a better way to communicate, which essentially means we are making another positive end, which is bound to become a active thread to associate negative ends with it. So beware of reading further ...

1. I think Conversations are eventually of two nature.
'AimFul' and 'Aimless'. AimFuls are more precise where Aimless are of desultory nature. Technical discussions seem to be Aimful and hence are easiest kind among all. As in these types of discussions a precise aim is defined that can be validated against a set of use-cases. So the point of miscommunication is minimal.
But other forms of discussion can be more complex, Aimless, those discussion in which the final aim is not defined.

2. Aimless discussions are normal arguments in which every person communicates within his/her own halo ( small world).
To understand each other it is necessary to communicate with respect to a common reference point. This is beacuse , out brain is inherently programmed to compare, against some pre-defined images or concepts, and every one has his/her own images and concepts, and that is the precise reason for a conversation turning to a argument
To understand each other it is necessary to communicate withing a common framework and I think this framework can only be defined by a common aim.

3. I think any kind of conversation is defined by a need. If the need is not immediate and not of an impending nature then it is blocked by the pre defined images ( some people also call it ego ). We ae not ready to listen, simply because listening to something or someone does not serve my immediate purpose, and purposes are also entertaining in nature. So we also argue or no-argue ( the other end ) also for sake of entertainment.

4. If it is possible to discuss as 'on-the-moment' discussion or argument, which eventually means that we understand our limitation of the pre-defined images ( ego ) and ready to go beyond the boundary,
then it may be possible to have a conversation that may be a learning experience.
A good way of this kind of argument can be Silence.