THE DANGERS OF WRONGLY PACKAGED OR CHANNELED COMMUNICATION

Perhaps, some people like me should go pick our old English books, dust them and read again. I had great English teachers in senior secondary school. As a matter of fact, there were three English teachers, all at once. While one took us on Comprehension, another took Composition, and the other handled Oral English. Of course, there were other subject areas under each of these divisions which gave us the holistic view of English.

What gave me concern was why we kept having several definitions in English, making it more complex. Something like this: “An adjectival clause of reasoning is a clause which…” LOL! Making a language used to understand other subjects complex wasn’t in my interest. I just hated it. But today, I wish I had taken the pains to understand all those lessons, because I now find it difficult to understand English or use it appropriately. And in my passionate writings, I sometimes do severe mix-ups.

When communication is channeled wrongly, it may end up being misunderstood, though the intent of sender may be flawless. Not knowing how to send the thoughts in one’s mind might be a problem. The packaging and channeling of thoughts, so that the receiver gets it just as it is in the mind of the sender, is where the task lies.

Recently, I got into conflict in a group. It was like an argument- I don’t like arguments, I simply like to share what I understand about things, but in the event where two people with different viewpoints want to do so, it still results in argument. Anyway, it got to a point where I used “you” to explain. I never meant to direct it at this person, but he took it personal, and I didn’t blame him. I only blamed myself for not using the right pronoun. Let me explain.

If I can remember, I said “You (instead of using ‘one’) do not win your destiny by breaking set boundaries. You find your path…. Don’t claim that what isn’t inclusive is your right, especially when there are legal and global backings….” Whereas, I should have paraphrased my explanation this way: “One(or People) do(es) not win one’s(their) destiny by breaking set boundaries… One(They) shouldn’t claim that what isn’t inclusive is one’s(their) right, especially when there are legal and global backings.” Now, you may not understand what I meant, because I haven’t given you the history of the discussion, but that isn’t as necessary as the message which I am trying to pass.

You see, if I had used the paraphrased version, I’m sure that even my opponent would have to an extent, agreed with me. But the previous version got him furious, launching attacks on me. Eventually, I had to apologize: You know that kind of apology you force out even when you know you didn’t mean any harm? It comes with real depression. The group apologized on my behalf and it was too late to explain, meanwhile the hurting retaliation I received continued to bang my heart that I had to take some time off.

Every poor communication has the tendency to produce an unintended effect. There are no instruments to read the intents in one’s heart. Verdicts are only made based on the way statements are released. And while some persons have the capacity to understand the contexts of statements, some others aren’t so gifted. The onus lies on every communicator, whether speaker or writer, to use the right words and expressions- including non-verbal- to adequately pass across his/her message.

We have heard of how poor communications have led to confrontations, conflicts, strife, enmity, evil plots, revenge, hurts, depressions, cardiac arrests, rage, suicides, murders, among other negative aftermaths.

There are risks involved in inappropriately packaged and channeled communication. Let’s always scrupulously ensure that our statements don’t get wrong conceptions.