Ask Lemmy

Math. This was a subject in the movie Contact.

Ever heard of the saying "Walk a mile in my shoes"? So the clearest means of conveying information would be to encapsulate someone's entire life experience up to that point, temporarily transfer that state to the other person and allow them to understand the entire background of how that information came to be. Do that back and forth and you have the clearest means of communicating information between people.

In written form — as long as there is a common language/ability to read, and a willingness to read too — ideally followed by a discussion (most preferably IRL, as you can easily see the other person's emotions and adjust your own communication to it) about whatever was read.

The (lack of) willingness to read is something that worries me a lot.

Not because I I see so many younger people focusing on YT content (or on any de-Googled version of YT), videos are a great tool and they have a legit place in most teaching/learning but they also can't replace books. So, when I see so many younger people using videos only, as well as many people my age who so easily have forgo books too), and when you start realizing university students seemingly cannot read books anymore... That's an issue. A serious one.

I'm also surprised people seem to not realize how much more efficient a text (be it a book, or an article) is compared to a video when one wants to study something, aka work on it and not just watch it for fun.

And even for fun, this time it's purely a personal preference: I prefer reading a text (and let my own brain/imagination decide what the characters or props look like), than watching it and being told that they look like this or that.

It may also be that I'm one of those old 50+ dude that don't get it and just don't realize how much better/cooler videos are compared to books. I doubt it, but I'm willing to admit I don't get it.

Depends on the kind of information, but I guess you mean politically sensitive? Then I would say from someone they personally trust, and if the information is contradicting their believes, then it should presented as a different point of view that doesn't directly try to contradict theirs, rather than the "truth", to prevent emotional rejection. Give them the bits of information while trying to not trigger blockers and let them make the connections by themselves.

My experience is mostly discussing about my rational skepticism views with religious/superstitious people without creating personal conflicts.

Books, not just reading but long form text. If someone doesn't want listen, then they won't even if they pretend otherwise.

So if a talented author puts out a message, the reader has to continually choosing to read, intake and process what is being communicated. It's easy to tune out of conversation, videos or lectures without realizing it. But if you make it to the end of the page and don't know what just happened, it's entirely at your discretion to go back and reprocess. Infinitely repeatable while requiring constant buy-in without the concept of just waiting out the duration while thinking of other things. To my mind, if you want to understand a complex idea than books are easily the best method.

People intentionally want to be misinformed.

So telling them what they want to hear is my suggestion.

There are a lot of ways to interpret this question, it really depends on the information and the people.

Between experts trained in the method of communication? Between experts and a general audience? One expert and one non-expert? Is it technical data? Nuanced opinion? Simple message?

This depends on the information and the recipient, every single time. Genuine understanding between two minds is more rare and precious than gold, and it fades all too quickly. It is like a flower once picked. You tend that garden if you want more than one.

Well, a punch in the face is a pretty clear communication, just with a very limited vocabulary.

Surrounded by flames at the end of an 18 hour shift. When it matters, you fuckin hear it.

Psychedelics, man.

Because they're like, cool, man.

I kind of hate to say it because I'm not a big fan of it, but video content seems to have the widest appeal.

I don't know that you'll ever be able to get to a single absolutely clear method though. People have different learning styles. For example, I prefer reading a book by text, but I just can't absorb an audiobook. Meanwhile I have several friends who can't focus well enough to sit through a dense book and can retain the whole thing through audio.

Anyway, videos check a lot of boxes that other formats miss. For example, so much of our communication relies on non-verbal cues which are missing entirely from books. While an audiobook might capture the tone, you still miss the body language.

Another advantage to videos is that depending on the tutorial, it can be both visual and experiential. A step-by-step video recipe is more accessible for new cooks who might not know what "mix until smooth" actually looks like.

So why don't I like videos? Well, to use the cooking example again, I already know how to cook. I don't actually need step-by-step guides, and usually I just need to refer back to the ingredients or a single step. It can be difficult or time consuming to scroll back through a video and find the exact right spot. My personal peeve is all these tiktok videos that get shared to me showing a recipe, where each ingredient flashes once for a half second, and if I miss it I have to let the whole video loop to find it again.

So anyway for broad appeal and for introduction to a subject, I think videos are probably the most enjoyed format. For a deeper dive or a reference it's got to be text for me.

Words! At least, for people capable of literal communication. You gotta interpret words as they're said, not as they sound or seem.

Violence is the universal form of communication.

Repetition. Be it in written, audio, or video form, repeating in until they're saturated in it.