A nice question!Worth going deeper into.
The statement ‘ You cannot communicate ‘ is by Paul Watzlawick.Watzlawick has deepened in human communication. The above theorem comes from his book “The Pragmatic Aspects of human communication”. Highly recommended, but uncommonly spicy. He is not easily able-another book of him is called “Is really true?”.
Watzlawick indicates that we are communicating in three ways.The first way is of course the verbal communication. We’re talking. In fact, this is a larger minefield than expected; Miscommunication is a rule rather than an exception. Making yourself clear proves complex.
The second communication method is the non-verbal communication.It helps if gestures and facial expressions match what you are saying. But I get confused when you report with a happy face and cheerful tone that you are sad, or the other way around: howling with misery tells me to be very happy. Here too, there is a lot of mass in communication, partly because non-verbal signals are important in a conversation. That sometimes explains our undexterity in telephone conversations-we lack a communication aspect. Also written messages (e-mail!) can lead to serious misunderstandings.
But what is at issue here is an extension of that non-verbal communication, with the intention that, as soon as another is present, I communicate by definition.Suppose I’m together with you in a room, and I read a book. At that moment I communicate. I say something like ‘ I don’t want to be disturbed, I read ‘. Or maybe I’ll say ‘ I find my book more engaging than you. ‘ And suppose you are up to go to the toilet and do not close the room door behind you, so I sit on the trek. You then communicate. The message is ‘ You are not worth me to close the door. Crack but. Lead but cold. I don’t take it with you. ‘
So you always communicate, and you determine the relationship with it.But the relationship can of course also be determined verbally, without naming it. Suppose I ask you ‘ Oh well, you want to close the door. ‘ That shows a complex interaction. After all, if I want to have that door close I could also stand up and close the door. But that does not happen. I ask you why? You are not my servant anyway? Or does it? Why do you need to close that door now-perhaps you should also stand up for it. How do I actually observe you, do I sometimes have a ‘ function ‘ for you in mind? So the message is ‘ I have the lead here, obey you ‘. Is that the message? When you stand up and close the door you acknowledge my ‘ leadership ‘. You can also say ‘ do it yourself ‘. At that time, our relationship is not yet defined in terms of ‘ who decides what ‘. But maybe I mean with my phrase, ‘ Oh, do you want to close the door as well ‘: God, are you already? What are you lazy anyway. Come in Motion man. Or, maybe I mean ‘ I would like you to do something for me, something small, with which you acknowledge me. Already you do the door but close, for me ‘.
In short, behind that one sentence there is a whole world.This world is described in ‘ the pragmatic aspects… ‘
So I can go on for a while but I hope to have clarified a little tip of your veil-not non-communicating.My detailed answer shows-not communicated-that I find this extremely interesting matter-and this is also desperately needed in my field.
In order to understand that statement, it is important to use a certain definition of communication.
One of the definitions of communication is: the antecedent making of information.
I will explain this to you, in order to clarify these misunderstandings.
Contrary to what many people think, we can derive from that definition that communicating is one-way traffic. So you don’t need a second party to communicate.No one needs to observe what you are communicating. When we send a message in the space, we also communicate, unwait, or ever to be captured by another civilization.
Another thing that we can infer from this definition is that communication does not have to consciously take place.So you can also communicate unconsciously. When you blush, or your stomach rumbles, you don’t consciously do that. But you do give away signals that others can capture, denotes, and connect to conclusions.
You’re always doing something, even when you sleep, your face has certain expressions.And people who see it, ‘ do something with it ‘. So you communicate. Not because YOU want it, but because someone else who sees it coincidentally sees a message in it.
Many people, and also scientists, do not agree.Those are more of a proponent of the definition:
Communication is the consciously antecedent making information.
If you use this definition, in the case such as R soul In his answer describes the person with the book in his chair will only communicate when it is aware of the situation.This is very interesting, especially in his field, when we are talking about people with certain personal storrnesses.
Sigh….Suddenly I know why I once went to study communication….