Skip to main content

Bela Lugosi is everywhere unwell, and particularly poorly in Japan.


                        Blair/Thatcher - 21 years in power: absolutely barking.
                                         Bela Lugosi is unwell.







             The asking + checking (Bela Lugosi) parts of communication are almost everywhere most often greeted with garlic, crucifixes and sharpened stakes.  Asking + checking  is met not only with the anger of the pitch-forked mob, but also with the fury of the guy in the castle. Those in power recognise that any effort to communicate represents a danger to those whose privileged position must never be exposed to the examination of sunlight lest it turn to dust. Human history shows that an increase in the quality of society is fundamentally linked to an increase in communication. Without the asking and checking of science, we would have none of our modern technological comforts. Without the asking and checking of the heretics we would still be in mortal fear of the church. Without the asking and checking of ordinary people, we'd still be wondering how to control fire.
              It would be cold.
           
             Power structures everywhere can only exist with the support of those within them. This support is usually tacit as those in power generally see to it that education and culture do not encourage people to communicate. This is a normal and necessary function of the system.
             If education and culture were to encourage communication, then asking + checking would be seen to be a good thing, and would naturally lead to genuine efforts to describe + explain. Yet in education there is usually no simple effort to encourage questions. There is no push to grade students on their ability to ask and check, which is fully 50% of communication. There is no acknowledgement that asking and checking are fundamental  components of communication.
            In the general culture, we can see how valued asking and checking is by the esteem in which debate is held-   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate
            In formal debates you are usually defending your position from attack and trying to convince others that your position is correct.. Like this, people's idea of high-level communication becomes no better than dogs woofing at each other. The important questions become: who did it louder? Who did it cuter? Who has the glossier coat? Televised political debates have rarely risen much above this as in formal debate there is absolutely no emphasis on trying to understand the other person's idea, and so no real attempt is made to communicate above dog-level.
           
People's communication becomes barking.

           As all communication always works as: Information -----------> Idea, the most basic and important function of asking and checking is to understand the idea.  If we are not trying to understand the other person's idea, then what are we trying to do? It's clear that fundamentalists of all coats represent problems in society, and it is also clear that these people have zero interest in the ideas of others. So why isn't it common practice for people to attempt to understand someone's idea before dismissing it?
      Here's an example from a conversation I have had recently with a Japanese student of English in my class. This student is a qualified tour guide, very capable of expressing himself in English-
          
Student.    Recently, there was a recommendation by Japanese business leaders                        that  correct English pronunciation is not so important....
                
       Me.    I agree. Japanese students are usually far too worried about style rather                   than basic information.                 

Student.    But if you don't have correct pronunciation communication is difficult.
          
       Me.    Well, it's impossible to communicate well if you are not trying to ask and
                check. It's these basic skills that are a million times more important than
               the idea of correct pronunciation.

Student.    Mm...Anyway, talking of pronunciation......

          It's clear here that the student is making no basic effort to understand my idea. That means, no basic effort to communicate. He is, of course, perfectly free to consider my idea to be rubbish, but I would appreciate him explaining why it is rubbish. How else am I going to learn?
          Basic communication is a more of a problem in Japan than in other places for the simple reason that Japanese culture discourages asking and checking even more than other cultures do. It is very common for Japanese to guess the other person's meaning rather than to ask them directly for more information. Also, Japanese are often encouraged by their culture to not articulate their ideas. Naturally, Japanese continue this approach when they attempt to communicate in another language. Unfortunately, with this attitude, the necessary practice for communication generally does not, and can not, happen. To take an example, in one of my classrooms recently a post-card sized strip of wall-paper had been taken from the wall. Quite naturally, I decided to fill that space with a demon trying to burst through from a parallel universe. This room is used for one-to-one lessons; of the next 30 students who came in, only 3 asked about the demon.
           If you are not prepared to comment on, or ask about, a small red imp attempting entry into the classroom from another dimension, then what do you deem worthy of communication?
        

                                                "Mark, Mark, let me in........"

        Another important point about asking + checking is that it's a vital part of the way we learn our native language. 
      Small children are born with the natural ability to ask and check. Small children, without any hesitation, try to get the information they need- what is it? when? where? is it ? and especially why? are asked with no prompting. And they are not copying adults, because adults are much more hesitant to ask questions.
      All of this means that asking + checking are innate parts of human communication. Children are born with the natural ability to ask and check yet it has largely been eroded by the time they become adults. In between, they go to school and are socialised according to the mores of the society. And society does not want too much communication. (However, according to Mrs Thatcher, there is "no such thing as society." A hugely interesting idea about which nobody asked or checked . As usual.)   

     Although there are important problems with asking and checking in Japan, we should  understand that problems with Bela Lugosi are a very basic human problem and not a specifically Japanese one. It's just easier to see in Japan.
      In my own country, Great Britain, we are in no state to feel superior about our communication skills because in Great Britain we are closing libraries. More than 200 in 2012.                 http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/dec/10/uk-lost-200-libraries-2012
      More than 200 is also the number of nuclear weapons that Britain retains.
     
      We are closing the libraries and are prepared to upgrade our nuclear weapons.  Isn't this a clear symptom of a sick society, a society where Bela Lugosi is unwell  ? 

Comments

  1. Your ideas are as ever intriguing. Any thoughts on 80% plus of communication being non verbal?

    By the way, a local library next to my workplace has now become a Little Waitrose. Now I can get quality sandwiches but little in the way of ideas. Which is a shame

    ReplyDelete
  2. About 80% of communication being non-verbal, is that only human communication?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sorry, I should have been more clear. Yes, human communication.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks.Is it of a single individual, or humanity in general?

      Delete
  4. It is - I had been informed that it was 80% plus, but further research indicates a minimum of 66% of communication - a human trait.

    This also makes sense to me as I go about my daily life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Any idea how this figure was arrived at?

      Delete
  5. Well, I am aware of some studies undertaken - most notably by the amusingly named Ray Birdwhistell - into human communication with his work on kinesics. You can click on Wikipedia as easily as I can, but he said: "no more than 30 to 35 percent of the social meaning of a conversation or an interaction is carried by the words." The work of Mrgaret Mead, Saussure, even Darwin also contribute to the large body of knowledge, which I feel is borne out by my own experience of being a human among humans.

    We could carry on counting angels on a pinhead for a long time, but I would attempt to draw you back (verbally) to the original question (which you must surely accept?) that a large part of human communication is non-verbal; what impact does that have on your theories please?

    I am genuinely interested in how you view this, in relation to the 'last resort' of physical violence (or even the threat of it) and the part that plays in our interactions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that most communication is non-verbal. If we accept that communication is most basically: information ------> idea then we can do away with the whole concept of "meaning" and arrive at a clearer understanding of (basically) what's going on.
      It seems to me that we've only just begun to scratch the surface of what human beings are and how we work, and important questions about language and communication remain to be asked.
      For example, how much of human communication is just the equivalent of birdsong? A call and response that is pleasurable to both parties? And at what point did our language evolve the ability to ask questions? And how? And why?
      Or, am I being unfair to birds and they DO in fact ask each other
      questions?
      My own view is that the human ability to communicate is beyond other animals and has led to our dominance. An inability to acknowledge the need for better communication could lead to the extinction of the species.
      "Wouldn't that be a good thing too?", ask the birds.

      Delete
    2. That might have been better as a tweet :)

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Cleopatra, a cowboy, then screaming!. - How we understand things.

“We, ignorant of ourselves, Beg often our own harms, which the wise powers Deny us for our good; so find we profit By losing of our prayers.”                 “Finish, good lady; the bright day is done, And we are for the Dark. ” ― William Shakespeare, Antony and Cleopatra   Cleopatra, a cowboy, then....screaming!       Presented with this information, how does the brain deal with it? Necessarily, the brain must deal with it as it does with all information:                                 Information -------------> Idea        Consequently, you might sort it out like this:               ...

The Revenge of The Bicameral Brain!

I bet they wished they hadn't bothered.       Hitler, like you or me, had a brain that operated in the same basic way as any ; that is to say, on the most basic principle of: Information -------------------> Idea. For example, presented with the information of the movie poster above, you would probably envisage Nazi scientists gathered around a tank* of fluid, in which is kept alive the titular thinking organ. You would, however, be wrong:                                                                    They saved Hitler's head and shoulders.              ...

A whale is a tree; obviously.

When I was young enough to be sat in school within glancing distance of a small library space that was dominated by a Miffy Wendy house# and contained, in my opinion, far too many Miffy books, yet just old enough to be offended that people would think that I would want to read about Miffy; the cover of one book spoke louder than all of those that surrounded it and thoroughly intrigued me.     The title of this book was: Jonah and the Whale.     Of course, this title referred to the famous Bible story, but at that age (maybe I was five or six) I don't think I knew of it. What I did know was what a whale was: a massive fish*, and that Jonah was someone's name, probably because of Ken Reid's comic character: Jonah . Jonah- not the Biblical one     So, the book's cover was something that drew my interest because, I wondered, why did the cover show an illustration of a man sitting under a tree? It was similar to this: Jonah...and... somet...