If there’s one thing everyone agrees on, it’s that it’s never a good idea to use 50 words when 20 might suffice. And considering the cost of paper, ink, bandwidth, and the reader’s time, why would this not be true? Yet, as is the case with everything that’s generally agreed on, it’s quite unlikely to be true in all cases, and may not even be true in general. If we humans were honey bees who’s communication technique was a little dance coded for information about the direction and distance of blooming flowers, or if we were robots trying only to relay commands from the Lord High Dalek, (something like E-X-T-E-R-M-I-N-A-T-E) then surely the shortest message would be at least an adequate one, if not the most adequate one. But alas, humans are a bit more complex than bees or robots, and our communications requirements are a bit more nuanced.
Whenever I write a letter to an editor, I’m ever mindful of the 250 word limit. It becomes maddening to wrestle even the simplest advocacy on any subject into anything that states its thesis within that limit, without leaving it totally shorn of all due qualifications and reservations. And any proposition stated as an absolute usually sounds absurd, because it usually is absurd. And if one were to include such qualifications without omitting the thesis itself, then this leaves little space for any supporting evidence. So what might have been a carefully reasoned suggestion becomes a simplistic, arrogant, and unsupported rant. In short, any point worth making cannot be convincingly made without both explanation and evidence, none of which is likely to fit into 250 words.
Even when not facing some arbitrary word limit, even in interpersonal speech with close friends and colleagues, the short way may not be the best way. Supposing you had just concluded a meeting with your boss and your friend asked you, “How did it go?” If you were to reply, “Mr. So and So was very short with me,” what exactly would you mean? The 4th Edition American Heritage Dictionary lists, among its many possible meanings for short: rudely brief; abrupt; and also, in a rude or curt manner. So if someone is being “short,” they certainly aren’t being polite, considerate, or patient. Yet why do we equate brevity with rudeness? If people state their business quickly, would this not place fewer demands on our time?
The trouble is that when people address us this curtly, they are not doing it to avoid wasting our time—they do it to avoid wasting their time. Also, in a long and nuanced conversation, both parties have ample time to volunteer information and to discuss any objections that either might have to any action taken. But when people are short with us, what might they be saying, besides that we are not worth much of their time? Are they saying that our objections don’t matter, or that our information is useless? Either would be insulting and inconsiderate.
But what of situations where no insult is intended, but where there simply isn’t time to discuss things at length? Even then the consequences of an artificially shortened exchange can be fairly dire. Shortening the process in and of itself changes the tone. The tentative becomes the imperative. What should have been, “Can we discuss this?” is received as, “Just do it!”
Also, sometimes people prefer to be addressed in a more indirect way, at least in certain situations. Suppose we have a “first date” situation, both parties having been mutually selected as moderately attractive, healthy, and normally concupiscent representatives of the opposite sex. Suppose also that in this particular case, both are unattached and have made it clear that, at this point in their lives, they are not looking for a long term relationship.
The woman involved knows perfectly well that she is regarded as an object of sexual desire—at least she certainly hopes so. If not, then the money she’s spent on her hair and the new outfit, purchased especially for this occasion, has been utterly wasted. Yet if her date dares to forthrightly propose some activity that might logically be pursuant to this desire, succinctly and in terse English prose, she might easily slap his face and leave in disgust—or perhaps in tears. But why? If you were an extra-terrestrial ethologist viewing this scene, what would you say in your report? Would you say, “The human courtship dance is extremely complicated and must be executed perfectly in all details or mating does not occur?” My own explanation is simply that sometimes people prefer to be approached less forthrightly. For reasons that may be personal or cultural or even biological, undue brevity may be strongly dispreferred.
And if you are trying to change a friend’s point of view on any issue, just stating your own take on the subject will not win a convert. In many cases, the views held by the person you’re addressing are similar to the views that you yourself once held. And yet the transition from your old position may not have been a blinding epiphany. More likely, it was a slow, very round-about odyssey encompassing many years. If you can slowly, patiently take your friend with you down that same intellectual or spiritual journey, and allow them to discover along the way the same things that you have discovered, then perhaps at the end they will arrive at an understanding similar to yours, or at least more sympathetic to it.
Finally, sometimes people accept evidence only if they are made to believe that they have discovered it themselves. Suppose you wish to elicit a cat’s interest in a toy mouse. Would you bash her over the head with it? That would certainly get her attention. But no; you would tie a string on it and very slowly drag it past the kitty, so that when she finally elects to pounce on it, she imagines it was her own discovery. People are a lot like that, so don’t hit them over the head with your idea. It’s much more effective to keep subtly dragging it past them till they pounce on it themselves. Yet this is a process that seldom occurs quickly. While the well chosen one-liner can be useful, or perhaps even priceless, most ideas worth explaining can be explained either at length—or not at all. (Sorry about the length of this post, but I made it a point to avoid undue brevity.)
No comments:
Post a Comment