Template:Onworld and offworld negotiation: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
VisualWikitext
Created page with "The same dynamic exists in a negotiation. The JC snookered himself into using a four box quadrant to illustrate this, because there are two perpendicular..."
 
No edit summary
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
The same dynamic exists in a [[negotiation]]. The [[JC]] snookered himself into using a [[quadrant|four box quadrant]] to illustrate this, because there are two perpendicular axes at play here: ''How many'' people are you speaking to, and ''in what medium''.
The same dynamic exists in a [[negotiation]]. The [[JC]] snookered himself into using a [[quadrant|four-box quadrant]] to illustrate this — he has an irrational fear of anything [[Thought-leader|thought-leaders]] are fond of — but they do seem to fit here because there are two perpendicular axes at play: ''How many'' people are you speaking to, and ''in what medium''.


In terms of our [[Onworld]]/[[Offworld]] distinction let us make some value judgments here: whether we like it or not, we inhabit a [[Complexity|complex]], non-linear world. In such a world, personal, immediate, and ''[[substantive]]'' communications beat impersonal, delayed, and [[Formal|formalistic]] ones. These best suit constructive, pragmatic, expert participants.
====How many====
How ''many'' people are in your audience? The more there are, the more [[formal]] you must be, the more generalised, the less opportunity for there is for nuance and that lubricating milk of human frailty, ''wit''. The more people, the narrower will be their common interest. Plainly, the more people there are, the greater will be the cultural, social and human barriers to ''unguarded constructive communication''.


Now your “medium of communication” can take a more or less ''personal'', and ''immediate'' form. The ''least'' personal and immediate communications are ''written'' ones (here the message is, literally, removed from the sender’s personality, and even where transmitted immediately, does not have to be answered in real time). The ''most'' personal and immediate ones are in actual, analogue person, like that ever happens these days — and failing that, a video call where you can ''see'' and ''hear'' nuance, then an audio call where you can just ''hear'' it. But any of these is vastly superior to written communication.
Fort any communication other than a one-way broadcast, ''one-to-many'' is a categorically worse medium for communication than ''one-to-one''.  


How ''many'' people are in your audience is just as important. The more there are, the more formal you must be, the more generalised, the less opportunity for there is for nuance and that lubricating milk of human frailty, wit. The more people there are, the less will be their common interest — cue appeals to take things off-line. Plainly, the more people there, are the greater the cultural, social and human barriers to unguarded communication rise twill there be
====What medium====
Now your “medium of communication” can take a more or less ''personal'', and ''immediate'' form. The ''least'' personal and immediate communications are ''written'' ones (here the message is, literally, removed from the sender’s personality and, even where transmitted immediately, need not be answered in real time). The ''most'' personal and immediate ones are in actual, analogue person — like that ever happens these days — and failing that, a video call where you can ''see'' and ''hear'' nuance, then an audio call where you can just ''hear'' it. But any of these is vastly superior to written communication.


In any gauge of communicative effectiveness you can take, other than information dissemination, ''one-to-many'' is categorically worse than ''one-to-one''.  
====On constructive and defensive communication====
In terms of our [[Onworld]]/[[Offworld]] distinction let us make some value judgments: whether we like it or not, the [[offworld]] we inhabit is a [[Complexity|complex]], [[non-linear]] one. Personal, creative, immediate, and ''[[substantive]]'' communications beat impersonal, delayed, and [[Formal|formalistic]] ones. ''Constructive'' communicators — players of “keepy-uppy” and like-minded [[Infinite game|infinite games]] — communicate to get along, and they therefore ''get on'' better than those who  communicate defensively — who play backward-looking, bounded, aero-sum, [[finite game|''finite'' games]].  


''Most'' analogue/immediate is in-person, followed by a video call, then an audio call, then in writing (and there may be a spectrum of formality in that writing too: Instant messages at one end; couriered paper at the other).
But the sorts of communications you favour depend what sort of, and how good, a communicator you are. Constructive, expert, imaginative, pragmatic, empathetic participants will be good at immediate interpersonal communications. Negative, defensive, inexpert, heartless, wooden communicators tend to be better at delayed, written communications.


With how many people you are communicating is obvious: one is best; after that it gets worse
''Why would you design your communication channels to favour negative, unempathetic, inexpert, defensive people?''

Latest revision as of 17:51, 10 November 2022

The same dynamic exists in a negotiation. The JC snookered himself into using a four-box quadrant to illustrate this — he has an irrational fear of anything thought-leaders are fond of — but they do seem to fit here because there are two perpendicular axes at play: How many people are you speaking to, and in what medium.

How many

How many people are in your audience? The more there are, the more formal you must be, the more generalised, the less opportunity for there is for nuance and that lubricating milk of human frailty, wit. The more people, the narrower will be their common interest. Plainly, the more people there are, the greater will be the cultural, social and human barriers to unguarded constructive communication.

Fort any communication other than a one-way broadcast, one-to-many is a categorically worse medium for communication than one-to-one.

What medium

Now your “medium of communication” can take a more or less personal, and immediate form. The least personal and immediate communications are written ones (here the message is, literally, removed from the sender’s personality and, even where transmitted immediately, need not be answered in real time). The most personal and immediate ones are in actual, analogue person — like that ever happens these days — and failing that, a video call where you can see and hear nuance, then an audio call where you can just hear it. But any of these is vastly superior to written communication.

On constructive and defensive communication

In terms of our Onworld/Offworld distinction let us make some value judgments: whether we like it or not, the offworld we inhabit is a complex, non-linear one. Personal, creative, immediate, and substantive communications beat impersonal, delayed, and formalistic ones. Constructive communicators — players of “keepy-uppy” and like-minded infinite games — communicate to get along, and they therefore get on better than those who communicate defensively — who play backward-looking, bounded, aero-sum, finite games.

But the sorts of communications you favour depend what sort of, and how good, a communicator you are. Constructive, expert, imaginative, pragmatic, empathetic participants will be good at immediate interpersonal communications. Negative, defensive, inexpert, heartless, wooden communicators tend to be better at delayed, written communications.

Why would you design your communication channels to favour negative, unempathetic, inexpert, defensive people?

Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Template:Onworld_and_offworld_negotiation&oldid=69133"