Dear John,

When “normal” people communicate with each other, there are loads of different data streams going on. When a film is broadcast, there might be the video, the audio and even subtitles in different languages. And hopefully they will correspond to each other; it can be quite funny when they don’t. See, for example the “subtitles for people who don’t like this film” from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

That’s roughly what I think is going on in a normal conversation. Except you only notice one stream at once, and I have learned to notice the others, but can only pay attention to one stream at once.

Now maybe it’s because of that, but most people are pretty sloppy in what they say. For example, they might ask “Is there any milk in the fridge?” Now to us, that enquiry is obviously asking about whether there is any milk in the fridge. There could be lots of reasons for their enquiry; they might be about to go shopping, or be wanting to check so they know if there will be enough for tea later or breakfast in the morning.

However, the other streams of communication will often (presumably) make it clear that what they actually want – even if that’s for someone to bring them the milk from the fridge. Apparently the other streams give them so much specificity that they can afford to be really sloppy in communication.

We don’t notice that. We can only hear one track, so we pay careful attention to that track, and we assume that if someone wants us to bring them the milk from the fridge, then they will ask for it.

You (and I) communicate quite differently from a lot of the people around you. You communicate on one track, and make sure you get it just right, and sometimes that takes time to work out what you’re going to say.

It can be annoying though. Like in a shop where a sign says “All candles £1.” To you, it is obvious that sign means that all the candles together should cost a total of £1, but then you have to stop and think whether that is what the sign-writer meant, or whether they meant “Any candle £1” or, for that matter, any of the other things they didn’t say. And, regrettably, I think the law sides with the shop on this. Incorrectly worded signs don’t force them to follow through on the transaction.

Sometimes it can be hilarious. A few years ago, I was at a large conference where a well-known billionaire philanthropist was speaking. Before they came on, there was a professionally produced video about progress in combatting poverty. It said something along the lines of “numbers of people in extreme poverty across the world have been cut in half”. I was in hysterics with laughter, both at the meaning of the words and the incongruity of the message. The vast majority of people in the room didn’t even notice.

It can be something of a superpower. Most people simply don’t seem to have the ability to pay attention to the words at the level you do automatically.

But most frequently it’s a source of misunderstanding. That’s what’s going on with the “does my bum look big in this?” problem.

You’d say that it’s categorically wrong to lie, and that truthfulness is clearly more loving than deception. And you’re right. But the question frequently isn’t asking what the words are saying. The meaning of the words communicates one thing – that it’s an enquiry about the apparent size of someone’s bottom given their clothing. But all the other channels might well be communicating that the question is actually about something else. That’s not at all obvious to you yet.

All the best,

Future John