Thursday, 31 May 2012

All your life will ever be

The second instalment from Mr Cake in Japan now follows, with some redaction.

Communication is the only thing we ever do. If you're a Class-A war criminal like Tony Blair, you'd probably want some guy like Alistair Campbell around to make sure that people get the information you want them to get. If you're encouraging people to invade another country or accept policies that guarantee a darker future for all, then you certainly don't want your audience, that is, the entire population of Britain, to have any idea how communication works, do you?

So, what IS communication and how does it work? Basically, communication works as follows:

INFORMATION-------------------------> IDEA

And, the four basic skills of communication are:


I would like to ask you, dear reader (and yes, I know no-one is really reading this, so I'll just take this opportunity to say: fuckshitwanker! City are rubbish! ) to ask yourself if, at any time during your experience of "education" anybody told you how communication works and the basic skills you need for it? Is the answer never? So nobody learns anything about THE ONLY THING WE EVER DO? Isn't this a problem?

In regard to the definition of "information" it is most basically defined as: everything in the universe. All language, all gestures, all actions, the clothes we wear, the football teams we support, it's all information. And anyone receiving this information will get ideas from it: he's not cool, she's trying to be, he likes me, she doesn't, he's a case, she wants to kill me. Communication is unavoidable.

If all this is true, then the massive failings of our education systems are clear to see. How often are children graded on their ability to ASK and CHECK? Is it practically never? That's 50% of communication right there that is simply ignored. Plus, are children taught how to DESCRIBING and EXPLAINING work? Clearly not. It can also be noted that IQ tests make no effort to measure peoples ability to describe+explain+ask+check.

It's important to understand that the fancy schools are just as bad. The graduates of top Universities the world over are not encouraged to understand how communication works . Thus, you get Oxford grads who spy for The Soviet Union. (The Soviet Union!!). Or you get former students from the prestigious Tokyo University joining Aum Shinrikyo, the apocalyptic cult that nerve-gassed the Tokyo Subway in 1995. A cult which used a photo of its leader "levitating" to recruit members.

Inevitably, the world is shitter than it necessarily has to be because of the simple fact that our leaders, our elite, are also thicker than they have to be.

As I define it, being thick is an inability or unwillingness to communicate, with intelligence being the opposite. In fact, we are born with innate communication skills that can be clearly seen if you spend any time in the company of small children. It's very common when interacting with under 5s to be struck by just how clever they are. The same thought is, to be generous, a rarity when engaging with adults. So what happens to people between the ages of 5 and 18? Do they go to school perhaps?

In a culture that understood and encouraged communication, people would have stood up and demanded of Obama, "What kind of change? Hope for what?" Instead of just crying and waving a flag.

In a British context, a BBC that appreciated communication would have as its flag-ship political programme: "Question and Explaining time."

Overall then, if you've ever wondered what the world would be like if it were run by dogs, wonder now longer. Just take a look around you.

I think we can do way better than dogs.

In future posts, I would like to expand on the topic of communication, and how the lack of it contributes to the detriment of everything we enjoy, including footy!. If that`s not exciting enough, I'll also impart important information about 9/11, the secret link between Kissinger and Zapruder, plus the answer to exactly WHY birds fall in love and sing so gay!


Myeral said...

Dear Mr Cake

A couple of points, if I may.

I would also say that just because someone went to Oxford, doesn't necessarily mean that they're intelligent. Context is very important, and the world was a very different one during the Burgess/Maclean years than it is now. In those days, there was a clear distinction between the Soviet bloc and the West, and much of the support from here for Uncle Joe was on (admittedly deluded) idealistic grounds. I don't know very much about Aum Shinriko, so I won't comment on that, though it is possible that attendance at - and indeed graduation from - Tokyo University is not a de facto indication of intelligence.

More fundamentally, while I agree with the thrust of your argument that there is not enough communication, I think you are slightly missing a major point. Politicians are (or at least used to be, as well as should be) often skilled communicators. Historically, it was always the way in which these people could put across an argument (no matter how spurious or facile) which won the day. So, it's not that they can't communicate, it's that they deliberately choose to communicate the wrong message. This is especially true of the Class A war criminal Tony Blair, though admittedly he took us to war against Iraq in the face of some pretty formidable opposition.

I do not take exception with you when you indicate that we in general are taught not to communicate as we go through school, but I do think that there is an agenda among the privileged elites for this to be so. Even accepting your premise that our leaders are'thick' because they do not describe+explain+ask+check, is this state of affairs in existence by accident or is there some kind of driving force behind making them so? Which is to say, naked greed?

Don Cake said...

Thanks for your response.
To take your last questions first: Our systems and institutions have traditionally evolved to meet the needs of the ruling class. This means that the elite must be trained to continue those same systems and institutions. This necessarily means that people aren't going to be encouraged to Describe+Explain+Ask+Check because that would be harmful to the current systems and institutions.
If we accept that intelligence = the ability to communicate, then it's clear that the elite are encouraged to be thicker than they have to be. Same as the rest of us.
Regarding Blair and his status as a "good communicator." Would you agree that all communication depends on definitions? The definition of communication I'm using demands that people make an effort to Describe+Explain+Ask+Check. So, for example, if someone accuses you of being a war criminal you can clearly and calmly explain why you aren`t one. Has Blair done this? If he has I've missed it.
Also, anyone trying to communicate well would acknowledge that, as all communication works as -
INFO----------------> IDEA
you would make a great effort to give as much information as possible so that people can understand the idea. If you are with-holding information or just plain making stuff up in order to place an idea in people's heads, then you are not making an effort to communicate on a possible human level but are, in fact, just manipulating people. This is along the lines of an insect that resembles a leaf, a rich old man wearing a syrup or a religious nut-case trying to murder someone for drawing a picture. It's all dog-level stuff.
Tony Blair ignoring questions, not explaining himself and, let's not forget, ignoring a very basic commandment from the God he's supposed to be worshipping, all indicate the communicative level of a labrador. That people went along with this only supports the idea that our culture places no real emphasis on communication.
In fact, it is clear that our elite institutions consider the "debate" to be the acme of human communication. Yet, a cursory examination of "debate" in reference to D+E+A+C and INFO==>IDEA shows that in formal debate, as there is zero effort to understand anyone's ideas (especially your own) there is no real effort to communicate well.
It is easy to predict how anyone schooled in such an environment will be ignorant of how communication works.

Myeral said...

Food for thought, if (I hope you'll forgive this) somewhat dogmatic.

What would you say to the fact that 80% of communication is non-verbal? I am not being facetious, but suggesting that communication among us human animals is not necessarily about ideas.

Don Cake said...

What's your definition of "idea"?

Myeral said...

An idea is no more than a thought.

Don Cake said...

Ok, but I am defining "idea" in the explanation of communication = Info----> Idea as "anything that results from information". This is why I claim that the only thing we do is communication. Would you agree with this or not?

Myeral said...

I would agree that all we ever do is communication, but I'm just saying that this can take many forms. More often than not, this communication is visceral and divorced from the mind.

In this, we have (in my humble opinion) the structure which underpins human interaction. Hierarchy, if you will. Many people - including Special Advisers - are in fear of their bosses and as a result do things which they know to be wrong, for fear of humiliation or worse.

I just don't think this can be ignored. And I stand by my original thrust, which is essentially (and almost always for the wrong reasons) that it's not always that we don't know HOW to communicate, it's that we CHOOSE not to.

Don Cake said...

I agree. Would things be improved if people knew how communication worked?

Myeral said...

Things would improve if teachers were encouraged to teach, yes. Sadly, looking at my own kids in the 'school setting' it seems that we may be going backwards. It's all very corporate and soulless, sad to say.