On communication

All forms of communication are essentially synchronization of mental processes. Whether one directional -- as in teaching -- or mutual -- as in chatting, the nature of communication is always that of synchronizing in two different systems a specific process, structure or dynamic property. When teaching, the point is to reproduce in the student the particular mindset of the teacher; after it, the student's brain should be capable of reenacting mental behaviors previously only exhibited by the teacher. On the other hand, when chatting with a friend, though the final state of both brains might be entirely undefined at the start, successful communication still means that some ingredient of their mind has become common. Literal evidence of this is found in the experimental observation of brainwave pattern synchronization and of eye-blinking.

As we mentioned before, mental structures form to satisfy a collection of imperatives, much like cities grow in a particular way because of geographical constraints. The thought process we experience is a superficial dynamic that reflects the deeper, less verbally expressive structures of ourselves. For example, when confronted with a particular present situation, the past arises as the story that causes the least friction between our own personal imperatives, like causality, learned over a lifetime of experience. We call a low friction state between these imperatives "making sense".

We commonly associate communication with conveying rational information. From the point of view just presented, this type of communication happens when the structures of both partakers are similar enough so that mental structures of lower friction, which are more stable, can be transmitted between them. This is akin to two cities with similar geographical constraints and internal dynamics exchanging solutions. One city might have opted for a circular transportation network which the other city copies if it causes less friction in the flow of people. The new city now behaves more like the first one. In the same way, so do our brains start to think alike when a better idea is communicated, like two bodies equalizing temperature.

Still very often communication fails. We have all experienced yelling at somebody else something which makes perfect sense to us, louder and louder, without any results. Despite the crystal clear obviousness of what we're saying, the other person simply won't agree. In the common language, this is known as stupidity. Nevertheless, from the perspective of brain synchronization, this simply means that the structure you're presenting does not stimulate in the other person's mind a state of lesser friction. Synchronization only happens when the states of the two -- initially distinct -- partakers have a higher friction ("make less sense") than the final synchronized state of both. It is like trying to impose the city outline of Venice to a town in the high mountains of Peru: the new structure simply does not provide any useful advantages. In the same way, debates between artists, religious scholars and scientists are, most of the time, pointless because the underlying imperatives of each are entirely different. They may even agree at some point, by some miraculous sleight of entertainment, but like when you build a Venice in the middle of the desert, the new thought process each of them acquired during the discussion is unstable and short-lived. Soon they will be back in their old selves. We have all experienced this: sometimes you discuss with someone and agree on something, yet later when you come home you can't reproduce the train of thought that earlier seemed so obvious to you.

But there is still a beacon of hope! These short lived events of agreement do indicate that communication also happens at deeper, unconscious levels. In fact, one can shift the focus of communication from trying to convey superficial, detailed structures like rational theories (such as this one) to transmitting emotions or even more basic properties. This would be something like transmitting the geographical constraints of your city to another city (though the metaphor begins to fall apart here). It obviously takes longer, is less systematic and requires constant corrections of course with a lower rate of success than superficial communication between two systems in already similar conditions.

You might be thinking "that kinda sounds like manipulation" but there is a difference between non-rational communication and manipulation. Manipulation attempts to mask the particular properties of your system to take advantage of the temporary blindness to make changes to your behavior that later, when internal communication is restored, reveal themselves as a hindrance rather than an improvement. Non-rational communication is still communication, but between other parts of our mind (or body) that are not in direct control of our voice (aka less verbal). It is like two geographical regions reaching a common, stabler state, like when internal tensions in the earth's crust equalize, turning hilly areas into flat plains. This process happens over a much more patient time scale. However, after it's occurred, common city planning becomes more likely.

Human communication would benefit greatly from occasional shifts to less rational channels of communication. Understanding the underlying imperatives of your opponent will help you address the obstacle in the communication from its root. The exclusive use of rational arguments is, in our view, one of the main drivers of extremist movements. Think of a tolerant person as a person who lives internally in a state of more-or-less unconditional trust, something like a flourishing plain served by a mild climate. A racist person's mindset, on the contrary, is more like a mountainous region constantly beaten by heavy storms. Obviously, the different conditions do not allow one town to engage in the same internal dynamics as the other. Failure to acknowledge that only leads to a widening chasm between the two communities. In the same way, failure to recognize, by the tolerant citizens, the real concerns and suffering of those who experience racist thoughts is the main reason why extremist groups tend to grow so fast. The inability to discuss it -- for fear of being labeled and marginalized as racist -- causes even people with just mild xenophobic emotions to turn to the only ones willing to acknowledge their distress: the extremist groups. Eventually communication happens between them and the mild xenophobia turns into full blown hatred towards foreigners. Such an outcome could have been avoided if communication between the tolerant ones and the intolerant ones had happen at the underlying level, conveying the feeling of peace and openness, instead of bluntly throwing rational arguments and accusations, which actually communicate, on an emotional level, the feeling that is already driving the xenophobia of the person.

The mismatch between rational communication and emotional communication leads to the notion of honest lies. Lies, very often, are much more intimate statements about a person. An overstatement of your abilities whispers your desire for acceptance, an understatement of your past romances cries out the exclusivity of feelings you're experiencing. If statements are consciously issued and received in this way, it can lead to a much more meaningful communication. It's like bringing the background into focus, while relaxing the details of the foreground, letting you see the bigger picture. It means taking statements not at face value but as a symptom, a clue to an internal dynamic, as a tool of synchronization that can take many forms. On the other hand, malicious use of lies -- dishonest lies, messages you transmit knowing the receiver will get the wrong meaning -- a practice otherwise known as lying -- is indeed manipulation.

Honest lying is nothing new. It is the way by which art communicates, especially verbal forms of art. Though a book may be a complete fantasy, it communicates the entanglements in the mind of the writer through a false narrative; and poems, the more extreme example, don't make any rational sense per say, because they aim exclusively at conveying the felt experience as a whole. Science also makes use of these honest lies. Nothing in the physics books corresponds to the truth: light is not a plane wave, water is not a fluid and planets are not spheres. But looking at them that way helps to bring deeper features about them into focus and somehow, through the careful use of honest lies, help us relate to phenomena so distant from us.