I guess I question the accuracy of breaking up communication into separate levels, and/or these levels in particular. This isn’t a taxonomy we’re talking about (or is it??) Also, I don’t like the example of “status conversation” given here. What if I disagree with your analysis? Well, you can’t say much, because it’s not an objective subject, which is exactly why you divorce that category from the category of facts. But if you’re divorcing it from facts, don’t inject it full of meaning that may not be correct. Instead, let’s say it’s non-factual oriented, and then figure out an assessment that’s guided by that definition.
It took me a long time to figure out that you were indeed saying something meaningful, rather than random babbling along these lines:
“You might be wrong. I don’t like it. What if I disagree? You can’t say much about this subject because it’s not objective. You’re doing something wrong; you might be wrong. Let’s use this term instead.”
I still don’t understand your comment fully. I wish you had written something like this:
“I guess I question the accuracy of breaking up communication into these levels. It’s difficult to talk about the idea of levels of communication, because it’s so subjective. or: In a status-level conversation, a person can’t say much, because they’re not really talking about anything objective. This is why you consider the status level and the fact level to be separate. But if you’re considering these to be separate, don’t make the assumption that the so-called status level is actually about status; call it the non-fact level, and make inferences based on that definition.”
Notice that there was one sentence that I managed to come up with two entirely different interpretations of, and there were a few sentences I omitted because I couldn’t figure out how they were relevant to anything.
I always aspire to speak as clearly and plainly as possible. Unfortunately that may not come across as accurately as I always wish. Anyways, you basically decoded what my meaning was here, and I appreciate your attention to clarification.
In lieu of your two interpretive sentences, I would restate “What if I disagree with your analysis? Well, you can’t make a strong argument against my interpretation, because the subject of both our interpretations is a subjective one. The interpretation of people’s comments (and social interaction in general) does not follow a logical truth table. Etc etc”
there were a few sentences I omitted because I couldn’t figure out how they were relevant to anything.
It looks like you didn’t understand my point about the taxonomy. To restate myself, what I’m saying is that it’s not clear that communication is something that can be chopped into bits and exist as the same thing. It’s not like we’re talking about an stew with a ham bone, peas, chicken broth, etc. inside of it. We’re talking about a complex entity that doesn’t necessarily amend itself to this procedure. On the other hand, maybe it does—but that requires justification. All of this (in my mind) should come before the principal part, the justification of the particular sub-levels that have been offered. And when those sub-levels have been offered, they ought to fit naturally into this scheme of a greater understanding of what communication constitutes. Overall, I would be looking for a more thorough analytic process than the one that starts the beginning of this post.
I guess I question the accuracy of breaking up communication into separate levels, and/or these levels in particular. This isn’t a taxonomy we’re talking about (or is it??) Also, I don’t like the example of “status conversation” given here. What if I disagree with your analysis? Well, you can’t say much, because it’s not an objective subject, which is exactly why you divorce that category from the category of facts. But if you’re divorcing it from facts, don’t inject it full of meaning that may not be correct. Instead, let’s say it’s non-factual oriented, and then figure out an assessment that’s guided by that definition.
It took me a long time to figure out that you were indeed saying something meaningful, rather than random babbling along these lines:
“You might be wrong. I don’t like it. What if I disagree? You can’t say much about this subject because it’s not objective. You’re doing something wrong; you might be wrong. Let’s use this term instead.”
I still don’t understand your comment fully. I wish you had written something like this:
“I guess I question the accuracy of breaking up communication into these levels. It’s difficult to talk about the idea of levels of communication, because it’s so subjective. or: In a status-level conversation, a person can’t say much, because they’re not really talking about anything objective. This is why you consider the status level and the fact level to be separate. But if you’re considering these to be separate, don’t make the assumption that the so-called status level is actually about status; call it the non-fact level, and make inferences based on that definition.”
Notice that there was one sentence that I managed to come up with two entirely different interpretations of, and there were a few sentences I omitted because I couldn’t figure out how they were relevant to anything.
I always aspire to speak as clearly and plainly as possible. Unfortunately that may not come across as accurately as I always wish. Anyways, you basically decoded what my meaning was here, and I appreciate your attention to clarification.
In lieu of your two interpretive sentences, I would restate “What if I disagree with your analysis? Well, you can’t make a strong argument against my interpretation, because the subject of both our interpretations is a subjective one. The interpretation of people’s comments (and social interaction in general) does not follow a logical truth table. Etc etc”
It looks like you didn’t understand my point about the taxonomy. To restate myself, what I’m saying is that it’s not clear that communication is something that can be chopped into bits and exist as the same thing. It’s not like we’re talking about an stew with a ham bone, peas, chicken broth, etc. inside of it. We’re talking about a complex entity that doesn’t necessarily amend itself to this procedure. On the other hand, maybe it does—but that requires justification. All of this (in my mind) should come before the principal part, the justification of the particular sub-levels that have been offered. And when those sub-levels have been offered, they ought to fit naturally into this scheme of a greater understanding of what communication constitutes. Overall, I would be looking for a more thorough analytic process than the one that starts the beginning of this post.
These are levels (or dimensions) that seem right to me, based on my experiences. If you disagree, you’re welcome to offer alternative ones.
Remember the analysis of the utterances as status communication occurs on the level of facts—you certainly can disagree with the analysis factually.
Of course, but that doesn’t make it convincing.
I wasn’t trying to make it so. What is your interpretation of the example?
(No, the analysis is what I am saying is subjective.)