10 ms·

> Clearly, we the minority have failed in explaining our views. Many years ago I wrote an essay called Two Laws of Explanation. One law says that if you’re expl

> Clearly, we the minority have failed in explaining our views. Many years ago I wrote an essay called Two Laws of Explanation. One law says that if you’re explaining something and the person you’re explaining to doesn’t get it, that’s not their problem, it’s your problem. I still believe this, absolutely. I agree with this whole heartedly, it’s the responsibility of the person doing the communicating, not the listener to pass on the message. If you feel your message is worthy, true, and just, what gets in the way of the listener not accepting a message? Seems to me there are three main things… - You are not able to effectively communicate the message. - The message is actually not as worthy, true, and just that you believe it is. - The listeners don’t recognize your authority

happytoexplain 2y ago
> The listeners don’t recognize your authority Yes, this is a "main thing" in that it is common and has a significant impact, but this one falls to both sides to get right. Communicators shouldn't try to invoke authority at all if it's not relevant (e.g. "I have X amount of experience with Y" may be relevant). But listeners also tend to have a problem of over-perceiving imposed authority (underdog/oppressed minority syndrome, i.e. "don't tell me what to do"), in the common case where the message can and should be judged without considering the speaker's level of authority (perceived or actual) at all. Or, in the cases where the communicator may actually have expertise on the topic, a listener who rejects the communicator's authority may do so based on those same tangential emotions.