The Illusion of Communication

Shaw suggested that the primary problem with communication was/is the illusion that it is taking or has taken place.

People rarely bear this in mind. They tend to imagine and assume. They can imagine communication to be good and effective when it is anything but.

There is a big problem in groups. Communication within a group feels like communication has happened but communication outside of the group has not even started. That decided in a group is rarely discussed or conveyed outside the group. Acceptance and agreement is assumed outside the group because consensus has been arrived at in group. It can be a huge surprise that no inclusion outside of group has ever happened. It is a group-mind illusion.

We might call this the crony problem.

As a speculative example. It is possible that health care professionals are discussing my case amongst themselves and maybe one day, someone will have to present it as a fait accompli to me. I will not have been involved in the discussion and therefore very unlikely to trust or accept the fait accompli just because someone said so. If I feel by-passed or ignored then my response is unlikely to be compliant-acceptant. Because discussion has occurred within peer group the illusion of communication is solid and held to be true perceptually. There is in this case a national and language barrier to boot and add icing. Inter group consensus amongst the French is important to them as far as I can see. Foreigners are less important.

I have noted multiple variations on this theme over the years. Where “they” discuss me, maybe conclude and then never even mention it to me or check their understanding of me with me. I am not being paranoid. I have anecdotal evidence in a number of cases.

–

–

Last Monday I had a CT scan of my chest and lungs prescribed by a lung specialist. Given my asthma, COPD and past history as a smoker, this is not a routine low risk screening. There are some results in my spirometry which need an explanation.

I am yet to receive the narration of the results from the consultant radiologist.

I have had a week in which to down load the images, start a loan of some medical CT imaging software and investigate the CT data. I have access to fibre broad band and can do AI image searches on CT snapshots. I have used the software to measure the dimensions of the (hopefully) bony growth on my thoracic spine and can see that it impinges upon my right lung. {This explains a slight niggle I have had there for a number of years.} I can read articles in medical journals like “The Lancet” and have a fair understanding of the gist.

I have watched videos of radiological grading of COPD, lung nodules and lung cancer staging. I have investigated diagnosis of the bony growth and it looks as though diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH) is the best putative diagnosis. I already know that this growth cannot be reversed. I have identified one lung nodule and think I can see where my ribs, broken in a rugby injury, have healed.

 I have no idea who is meant to follow up, if at all. I am in a vacuum.

Any subsequent conversation is unlikely to be aware or informed by/of the scope of my investigations. I’ll speculate that it will not be assumed to be thorough.

Any initial point of subsequent communication will have assumptions on each side.

I have asked that if there is anything important someone gets in touch. Silence suggests that there is no problem. This assumption could be fundamentally flawed in a clinically significant manner. People are busy and in medicine often pressure prompted. The body on the table in front of you is more important that the one in a computer file and the end of a telephone line.

The whole thing, like so many things here grinds to a halt of inertia. Who knows who is responsible or is in charge of taking this forward?

Loose…means that balls get dropped…and then it is very hard to overcome the inertia once more…

Laisser tomber – BOF….