Two very different ways of communicating.

I cannot speak.

I cannot talk.

I cannot communicate.

*

I wish to make two very important distinctions in the art of communication -

social communication, and

purely functional communication.

The irony is, that much of the time, both use the same vehicle called language. But, the latter is, by far, the simpler one. The latter, is something a machine can do. The latter, is something that can be "learned" quite easily.

What I am referring to is 'pure' information exchange. This is simple. In fact, one need only but the simplest means to achieve this. Also it's 'universal', in the sense that anyone can 'learn' to do it, and also, the identity of the sender and receiver doesn't matter. They're just passing on information. One cannot care less about who it is that is the messenger.

Social communication.

This is a completely different beast, though it is an emergent form of communication that arises "from" functional communication. However, it is much more complex. A mistake one can oh-so-easily make is to equate this unique form of communication with that of pure "information-exchange".

Oh how wrong that is! Oh how misleading! Oh how... unforgivingly irreconcilable those two forms of communication are!

To prove my point: disastrous consequences arise if one interprets social communication as purely functional communication.

And let me tell you this - the skills used in the above two forms of communications are completely, utterly, different. I may even go as far as to say that our brain process these two forms in different ways.

Let me illustrate what I mean. I'm not trying to be pedantic in differentiating these two forms of communication. These are real differences that I feel everyday.

A scientist who writes a brilliant, Nobel-prize winning, succint, complex, paper ... may find it hard to exchange 'social niceties' with a cashier at the local supermarket.

A novelist, or a poet, may write one of the most resounding, heart-moving works of our lifetime ... but it may be impossible to have a 'casual conversation' over a cup of tea with them.

A brilliant orator may speak one of the most inspiring speeches ever; yet at a dinner party afterwards, they may not have a clue how to speak to other, actual, people.

Note in illustrating the above, I have shown just how wide the scope of "functional" (information-exchange) communication can be. It may even strongly touch people emotionally (as in the novelist / orator example) BUT, with all that said, it is still distinct from "social" communication.

I don't know.

I don't know how one becomes adept at that obscure art of social communication.

I guess it's some genetics. And socio-psycho-cultural upbringing and exposure.

But one thing resoundingly, heart-wrenchingly clear is that one can be ever-so-capable in one area, but can be completely deficient in another.

Oh the irony! Oh the misery ...