Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
Frequently the messages have meaning; that is they refer to or are correlated according to some
system with certain physical or conceptual entities. These semantic aspects of communication are
irrelevant to the engineering problem.
Today we might say that this dismissal of semantics was a working hypothesis for the
engineer. A working hypothesis is an assumption that one makes to simplify analysis,
but which is subsequently relaxed in order to analyze the complete problem. It is unfor-
tunate that the validity of this hypothesis was not more closely examined in subsequent
discussions of information in order to take the properties of the sender and the receiver
into account.
Meaning emanates outward from the message created by the sender, whereas under-
standing flows inward with the message interpreted by the receiver. However, neither
understanding nor meaning is a simple concept. One message may be interpreted very
differently by different people. Telling a co-worker that “they did a good job” may
elicit a smile and nod from a subordinate; but it may be interpreted as patronizing by
a competitor, and even as presumptuous by a superior. Consequently the meaning of
this apparently positive phrase is not fixed, but depends on the context in which it is
used. To the subordinate it is acknowledgment, to the peer it is condescension, and
to management it is arrogance. Such confusion is at the heart of “politically correct”
speaking.
Let us leave meaning for the moment and turn to understanding. Of course, in one
sense understanding is determining the intended meaning of a message. So when the
sender's intended meaning is the same as that apprehended by the receiver, the receiver
is said to understand the message. Of course, the equivalence of the meaning and
understanding of a message can be determined only by the sender and receiver getting
together after reception of the transmission and comparing what was said with what
was heard. But, since this happens all too rarely, perhaps we should look elsewhere for
understanding.
From a different perspective, understanding is the completion of a mental map of
a phenomenon. In the physical world an event occurs, say lightning flashes from the
clouds connecting the sky and the earth with an erratic line of bright light, such as that
shown in Figure 1.13 . A second or so later there is a deafening sound of thunder. Prim-
itive man on the Serengeti knows the thunder to be the voice of god and the lightning
to be god's hand. Man therefore understands the nature of thunder and lightning and his
mental map connects him to the elements. He is part of the awesome display of power
that god puts on for him.
Man's understanding of such natural phenomena as thunder and lightning also gave
those events meaning. The events were neither random nor capricious, but were part
of the interaction between man and his god. It often fell to the shaman of the tribe to
interpret the specific meaning of an interaction. For example, how the lightning, which
caused a fire in the village, was punishment for something they had done, or for some-
thing they had failed to do. The shaman also knew how dancing might produce rain to
end the drought, or what sacrifice might placate a god's anger. To some this “wisdom”
Search WWH ::




Custom Search