Yao introduced a model for computing complexity of communication. Say Alice and Bob know two different parts of a story and they are trying to solve a mystery. The amount of talking they need to do is the complexity measure. If they need to exchange too much data to solve the mystery then the whole mystery is said to have high complexity, and low otherwise. At first this seems very natural.
Uninteresting example: Alice and Bob each holds a list of numbers. Alice doesn't know Bob's list and vice-a-versa. Now they have to figure out which is the smallest number in the two lists put together. Well one way is, Alice tells all the numbers she has and Bob having listened to the whole story then declares the minimum. But the complexity of this communication is too much, because they talked too much. However, following communication has lower complexity than previous one: Alice first computes the minimum number in her list and tells only that to Bob. Bob in turn compares this minimum with minimum of his list and tells Alice the overall minimum.
Of course the purpose of this model was very different. But just for fun, let's extend this model to our interactions. Say you and your friend get to hear some really non-trivial gossip. The piece of information is the common knowledge. Now the model asks the two to not talk about it!!! Just imagine, you and your friend know some juicy gossip and what do you do? Apparently not discuss it. How insane!!
Clearly, the model of counting complexity of our communications can't be lifted from the mathematical model Yao proposed, because the premise of the model doesn't apply to our communications. How does one count the complexity of our communications?
Communications are of two kinds,
(1) with the self
(2) with the world.
I propose following measure for communication complexity
complexity(A-B) = 'difference between the way A talks to herself as compared to that with B' .
For example, you are very close to some person and you can almost talk to him/her like you are talking to yourself, then the complexity of the communication is very low. Where as, the weird diplomatic talks we need to carry out sometimes, will be called high-complexity communications in this model. And I would also say the closeness is inversely proportional to the complexity of the interaction. Let us call interactions 'hard' if they have high complexity and 'easy' otherwise. Of course, note that, this model does not ask for "telling each other everything" clause at all. All it counts is, how much at ease you are in an interactions. Say for example, if a person does not share every minute detail with his parent, but if he feels at home talking to them and expresses himself completely on issues he talks to them about, then that would be called an easy interaction.
We have to carry around a whole lot baggage of hard interactions, thanks to the big families we are born in, big society in which we have to fit ourselves, the different roles we are expected to play so on and so forth. But what would be the best is to minimise these hard interaction. This is because, the hard interactions by their very definition are not genuine. And I ask, what worth is an interaction if its not genuine?
Uninteresting example: Alice and Bob each holds a list of numbers. Alice doesn't know Bob's list and vice-a-versa. Now they have to figure out which is the smallest number in the two lists put together. Well one way is, Alice tells all the numbers she has and Bob having listened to the whole story then declares the minimum. But the complexity of this communication is too much, because they talked too much. However, following communication has lower complexity than previous one: Alice first computes the minimum number in her list and tells only that to Bob. Bob in turn compares this minimum with minimum of his list and tells Alice the overall minimum.
Of course the purpose of this model was very different. But just for fun, let's extend this model to our interactions. Say you and your friend get to hear some really non-trivial gossip. The piece of information is the common knowledge. Now the model asks the two to not talk about it!!! Just imagine, you and your friend know some juicy gossip and what do you do? Apparently not discuss it. How insane!!
Clearly, the model of counting complexity of our communications can't be lifted from the mathematical model Yao proposed, because the premise of the model doesn't apply to our communications. How does one count the complexity of our communications?
Communications are of two kinds,
(1) with the self
(2) with the world.
I propose following measure for communication complexity
complexity(A-B) = 'difference between the way A talks to herself as compared to that with B' .
For example, you are very close to some person and you can almost talk to him/her like you are talking to yourself, then the complexity of the communication is very low. Where as, the weird diplomatic talks we need to carry out sometimes, will be called high-complexity communications in this model. And I would also say the closeness is inversely proportional to the complexity of the interaction. Let us call interactions 'hard' if they have high complexity and 'easy' otherwise. Of course, note that, this model does not ask for "telling each other everything" clause at all. All it counts is, how much at ease you are in an interactions. Say for example, if a person does not share every minute detail with his parent, but if he feels at home talking to them and expresses himself completely on issues he talks to them about, then that would be called an easy interaction.
We have to carry around a whole lot baggage of hard interactions, thanks to the big families we are born in, big society in which we have to fit ourselves, the different roles we are expected to play so on and so forth. But what would be the best is to minimise these hard interaction. This is because, the hard interactions by their very definition are not genuine. And I ask, what worth is an interaction if its not genuine?
Comments
.....but there could be other critria for closeness also.....like caring for someone...this definition is such that it doesnot mean that u should be able to tell someone everything......coz u may not be able to open up in front of someone and yet care a lot abt him/her.....and u want him/her to be happy and u feel sad if that person is in trouble....and u care for the other persons needs and wants and feelings..again this is very easily quantifiable....most of us know who we care for more than others etc.....ur example of ur closeness with parents comes in this criteria i think....
they are both valid but different criteria i think......and we are closer to some people according to one criteria and not so close to the same people according to the other one...
.....for me personally the first criteria is far more important than the other and in most cases subsumes the second one....
few things i do not agree on are:
i am ofcourse assuming that complexity(A-A) = 0 here. i mean, if u are in a confused state of mind then this theory just doesn't apply.... may be its a big assumption, but still its fair..... because clarity of ur own thots is necessary for communication with the world.....
secondly, well, i meant closeness within that particular interaction...so for example with my guide: i can go ask some really silly doubts to her but can't ask them to anybody else....then it means in technical interactions i am closer to my guide as compared to anybody else....(ofcourse not in all interactions)
i am not trying to classify closenesses here....i am trying to classify interactions and then just putting a measure of closeness within an interaction.... i think, classifying closeness is much harder task.... all i am trying to do here is classify types of interactions....
i agree that ofcourse closeness can be of diff types....
Of course "closeness" plays an important role, but even when communicating with 2 strangers, the complexity of communication depend on things like location (in a public toilet or at the bus-stop), time of day, male/female, etc. There are biases based on previous experiences, up bringing & prior generalizations when communicating as well. All these need to be factored in when computing complexity.
(my thoughts on context
Ultimate Communication Medium)
under a scenario when one doesn't expect anything from the other (talk less or more) if two people can hit it off (feel comfortable/can hold low complexity communications) then may be such expectations r the main problem and not the communication itself....
it is a inhuman suggestion to ask to not expect.... (though that would be ideal situation).... personally, when i am not able to deliver to other person's expectations, i simply can not communicate (it starts to suffocate me).... but i am sure there is a better way to go about this.... however, i am unable to execute any other way myself...