Sending and receiving, or getting the message across
Yeah, I initially posted this diatribe on Forgemagic, but I like it enough that I'm sticking it here so I can keep going back and re-reading it when I want to impress myself with my own brilliance. Sure.
Sending and receiving
One of the more significant requirements for good police work is effective communication. Without effective communication there can be no transfer of information, and information is the very currency of police work. Professional police officers spend a great deal of time being taught effective communication, and some of them actually learn it. It isn't all that easy to learn, judging from the relatively low percentage of effective communicators in the field of law enforcement. Still, most of us in the field try very hard to become effective communicators, and every once in a while a really inspiring instructor comes along with a messange and/or delivery that makes it all click into place and the gestalt is suddenly grasped.
One of the better instructors I ever had in a communications course emphasized that every communication has two parties; the "sender" and the "receiver." Whenever there is a miscommunication or misunderstanding, the "receiver" is ALWAYS right. The responsibility for effective communication always lies with the sender, rather than the receiver. Or, to put it another way, the teacher is at fault if the student is not getting the message. Admittedly, that is a bit simplistic and absolutist, but I've found it to be overwhelmingly, if not universally, true.
One reason I, like John Larson, find the seminar format much more conducive to effective communication (and thus, learning), is that the level of feedback between the sender and the receiver is much higher and far, far faster than with either the lecture or Socratic methods. The Socratic method is fine one-on-one, but falls dismally short of effective when employed in larger groups. Unfortunately, the larger the audience and the more dogmatic the teacher, the more likely he will use the Socratic method. Those who are dogmatic but also insecure use the lecture method mostly, it seems. The seminar format, on the other hand, flows quickly and fluidly, allowing prompt feedback of "reception clarity", and allows the sender to adjust quickly to differing needs on the part of the receivers. Hence, much more actual *information* gets received, and less white noise.
The internet forum or blog format is more akin to a seminar than to a lecture, generally. The anonymity of the medium lets the receivers voice their feedback unhampered by identification, manners or etiquette. Pedants seem to rankle at this freestyle feedback and blame the medium for the message. McLuhan to the contrary, the medium only facilitates the message, it is not the message itself. This forum is a good example of how the format can facilitate the exchange of information. The free exchange of ideas and opinions usually results in a surprisingly effective transmission of information. Certainly not infallible, but generally pretty damned effective when the players understand the limits of the medium and adjust their transmissions accordingly. Those who can't, or won't, adjust to meet the parameters of the format/medium are the ones we most often see complaining about being misinterpreted or maligned in some way.
When in Rome, at least *try* to speak Latin. End of lecture. (grin)
Sending and receiving
One of the more significant requirements for good police work is effective communication. Without effective communication there can be no transfer of information, and information is the very currency of police work. Professional police officers spend a great deal of time being taught effective communication, and some of them actually learn it. It isn't all that easy to learn, judging from the relatively low percentage of effective communicators in the field of law enforcement. Still, most of us in the field try very hard to become effective communicators, and every once in a while a really inspiring instructor comes along with a messange and/or delivery that makes it all click into place and the gestalt is suddenly grasped.
One of the better instructors I ever had in a communications course emphasized that every communication has two parties; the "sender" and the "receiver." Whenever there is a miscommunication or misunderstanding, the "receiver" is ALWAYS right. The responsibility for effective communication always lies with the sender, rather than the receiver. Or, to put it another way, the teacher is at fault if the student is not getting the message. Admittedly, that is a bit simplistic and absolutist, but I've found it to be overwhelmingly, if not universally, true.
One reason I, like John Larson, find the seminar format much more conducive to effective communication (and thus, learning), is that the level of feedback between the sender and the receiver is much higher and far, far faster than with either the lecture or Socratic methods. The Socratic method is fine one-on-one, but falls dismally short of effective when employed in larger groups. Unfortunately, the larger the audience and the more dogmatic the teacher, the more likely he will use the Socratic method. Those who are dogmatic but also insecure use the lecture method mostly, it seems. The seminar format, on the other hand, flows quickly and fluidly, allowing prompt feedback of "reception clarity", and allows the sender to adjust quickly to differing needs on the part of the receivers. Hence, much more actual *information* gets received, and less white noise.
The internet forum or blog format is more akin to a seminar than to a lecture, generally. The anonymity of the medium lets the receivers voice their feedback unhampered by identification, manners or etiquette. Pedants seem to rankle at this freestyle feedback and blame the medium for the message. McLuhan to the contrary, the medium only facilitates the message, it is not the message itself. This forum is a good example of how the format can facilitate the exchange of information. The free exchange of ideas and opinions usually results in a surprisingly effective transmission of information. Certainly not infallible, but generally pretty damned effective when the players understand the limits of the medium and adjust their transmissions accordingly. Those who can't, or won't, adjust to meet the parameters of the format/medium are the ones we most often see complaining about being misinterpreted or maligned in some way.
When in Rome, at least *try* to speak Latin. End of lecture. (grin)
posted by Rich Waugh at 5:20 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home