What I’m saying is that communication is a burden upon the speaker and the listener, or the writer and the reader. The encoder and the decoder. But any way you look at it, the goal is to communicate (on the part of the encoder) and discern (on the part of the decoder) the intent of the communication act. It’s not about fault or responsibility when communication fails, but what’s more important in understanding a communication act.
See, I don’t disagree with that - because that shifts the statement to be ‘encoder and decoder share responsibility for intention and perception’ - which is more reasonable, but does not marry up with your original statement of intention all the way.
Well the question which it was trying to answer was “Which is more important?” without further context. We’ve all had to fill the blanks around “more important for what?” The intent is somewhat unclear, ironically enough.
I’ve interpreted as a question about communication, or specifically about which of these two factors is more important in determining how communication ought to be interpreted. A way to rephrase the question as I interpreted it could be “When a communication fails, when the interpretation varies from the intent, which merits greater consideration in determining the final disposition of the communication? Do we circle back to the intent of the statement, or does meaning imbued in the new interpretation take precedence?”
So it’s to that question that I say it’s intention all the way, and that if we iteratively communicate with the goal of making intent and interpretation match, the goal should be to arrive at the intent of the initial communicator and not to convince the intial communicator that the interpreter’s initial interpretation was correct.
Of course I might have misunderstood what OP was asking, idk.
I agree that the goal would be for perception to match intent. But the acknowledgement that in order to do so we must iterate on a poor first communication highlights the fact that the perception is the important aspect as intent is static and unchanged by further iteration.
If perception wasn’t at least as important as intent, then you could make a well intentioned communication and not worry if it was received correctly.
I did write some more but managed to fat-finger delete it and now I can’t remember what I was trying to say. I’m hoping my point has still come across clearly? Sorry!
Not quite saying that.
What I’m saying is that communication is a burden upon the speaker and the listener, or the writer and the reader. The encoder and the decoder. But any way you look at it, the goal is to communicate (on the part of the encoder) and discern (on the part of the decoder) the intent of the communication act. It’s not about fault or responsibility when communication fails, but what’s more important in understanding a communication act.
See, I don’t disagree with that - because that shifts the statement to be ‘encoder and decoder share responsibility for intention and perception’ - which is more reasonable, but does not marry up with your original statement of intention all the way.
Well the question which it was trying to answer was “Which is more important?” without further context. We’ve all had to fill the blanks around “more important for what?” The intent is somewhat unclear, ironically enough.
I’ve interpreted as a question about communication, or specifically about which of these two factors is more important in determining how communication ought to be interpreted. A way to rephrase the question as I interpreted it could be “When a communication fails, when the interpretation varies from the intent, which merits greater consideration in determining the final disposition of the communication? Do we circle back to the intent of the statement, or does meaning imbued in the new interpretation take precedence?”
So it’s to that question that I say it’s intention all the way, and that if we iteratively communicate with the goal of making intent and interpretation match, the goal should be to arrive at the intent of the initial communicator and not to convince the intial communicator that the interpreter’s initial interpretation was correct.
Of course I might have misunderstood what OP was asking, idk.
I agree that the goal would be for perception to match intent. But the acknowledgement that in order to do so we must iterate on a poor first communication highlights the fact that the perception is the important aspect as intent is static and unchanged by further iteration.
If perception wasn’t at least as important as intent, then you could make a well intentioned communication and not worry if it was received correctly.
I did write some more but managed to fat-finger delete it and now I can’t remember what I was trying to say. I’m hoping my point has still come across clearly? Sorry!