There are many different models to understand communication. You can take the time to research the existing models if you want. But I’ve always found them lacking in accessibility. They are too academic, and it’s hard to apply them in daily life. The way I think about communication has evolved over time, but the current framework I use most is something I’ve dubbed the “quantum model of communication”.
The standard model of communication has four parts: sender, receiver, message, and noise. The simplest mapping of this model to the real world is email. The sender is the person typing the email. The receiver is the person on the ‘To’ line. The message is the content of the email itself. And the noise is electronic systems that might garble the message in transit.
Most people operate using this standard model of communication. They’ll craft their message, fire it off to the relevant parties, and proclaim that they’ve communicated. Their proclamation is premature though. Effective communication requires ensuring that the message the sender thought they sent, is the same message the receiver thought they received. The value-add provided by communication is not the transmission of messages, but rather the interpretation by both sender and receiver.
The quantum model of communication defines a framework specifically for understanding how to interpret messages. The model relies on a principle from quantum mechanics called quantum superposition. For the purposes of this post, the technical semantics of superposition aren’t as relevant as the underlying conceptual idea. So the definition that follows is geared towards developing the idea and will gloss over the technicalities.
Quantum superposition is a principle that describes the state of objects in a system. Being a quantum principle, it’s drastically different than the conventional way we think about state. Conventionally, we understand state as being a fixed property of an object. If a light switch is on, it cannot also be off. If I am currently in North Dakota, I cannot also be in California. If today is February 17th, it cannot also be November 12th. The state is fixed at any given time.
Within quantum superposition, however, the state of an object is not a fixed property. Instead, the state is defined as a probability. We simply can’t know the exact state of the object with certainty. We only know that it’s somewhere within a probability distribution. The other quirk of superposition is that the object exists in every possible state simultaneously. Using the same examples from above, the light switch is both on and off. I am in both North Dakota and California. Today is February 17th and November 12th. All at the same time.
So quantum superposition defines a “state space”, which is the range of all possible states for an object. There is an underlying distribution function defining the state space. Within that distribution, some states could be more likely than others. But while the object is in superposition, it exists in every state at the same time.
Objects can’t always stay in superposition however. Eventually someone will come along and observe the object, rendering some observed state. Schrödinger’s cat is the most cited example of how observing an object affects its state (I’m assuming some familiarity with the experiment in what follows). While the cat is in the box, its state is in superposition. It is both alive and dead. When the box is opened, the observer notes the cat’s state becomes fixed. It is either alive or dead. It can no longer be both. The observation is said to “collapse” the state of the system.
Collapsing the state instantly narrows the state space to a single value. Imagine a bell-curve distribution depicting the probabilities for the state space of an object. The states clustered around the mean have a higher probability than the states at the edges. But as soon as you observe the object, the distribution instantly collapses into a single state. No matter where that state was in the distribution, it now has a probability of 100%.
Now that the foundational concepts around communication and quantum superposition are introduced, I can start to knit the pieces together.
When a message is being constructed in the mind of the sender, it has a single state. The sender’s entire lifetime of thoughts and experiences are put to work to compress an idea into symbols that can be communicated. When that message is sent, it gets put up in the space between sender and receiver. Now, it no longer has a single state, but is put in superposition. The message exists in a state space of every possible interpretation that could exist between sender and receiver. There are thousands of possible states now and the message exists in all of them simultaneously. We achieve effective communication by working to collapse the state.
One of my favorite things about using this model of communication is that it allows us to define an easy to diagnose failure-mode. We get a workable definition for what constitutes miscommunication. Failure happens when the state has not yet collapsed.
I’ve found this failure-mode is usually the result of not properly understanding the state space. The sender or receiver assumes the state space of the opposite party mirrors their own. That is, the only possible interpretations are those that they have already thought of and accounted for. This leads to time spent elaborating and clarifying only on the subset of points they think could cause confusion. They are discounting the fact that their message exists in superposition of all possible states. And the state space for the message is the combined state space of each party individually.
In fact, it’s entirely possible that the sender and receiver have sufficiently different viewpoints. Different enough that there is no overlap between their state spaces. In this scenario, it is useless to spend time trying to refine the message to collapse the state. The only refinements immediately evident are those within an individual’s own interpretations. And those refinements will never lead to the collapse of the combined state space. They won’t address the other side’s state space at all. It is better to spend time establishing and developing a common ground between sender and receiver. Once a shared state space is established, communication can be achieved. Only then can the states collapse.
I got a perfect lesson in underestimating the state space recently. I was explaining the quantum model of communication to my lovely wife, and she asked for an example. I put forth what I considered an easily misinterpretable message, “I hope the giants will win.” I was assuming there were only two obvious states (New York Giants or San Francisco Giants). She quickly picked up on the concept and responded, “Like the giants in Harry Potter?” I had never even considered the non-sports interpretation. I narrowly framed the state space based on what I thought obvious. I was discounting a whole set of other possible interpretations. It’s a good lesson that the combined state space of interpretations is what matters for communication.
I’ll also add that communication within this model is collaborative. Collapsing the state is the job of both sender and receiver. If a message is unclear to the receiver, it is their responsibility to seek to reconcile their interpretation with that of the sender. Likewise, a sender cannot just send a message into the void and assume it was understood. The sender needs to follow-up with the receiver to make sure they are working from the same interpretation. Unless they are both working together to arrive at a single shared interpretation, they have not achieved communication of any significance.
In summary, once a message enters the space between sender and receiver it no longer has a single state. The message is put in superposition and exists simultaneously in a distribution of every possible interpretation between sender and receiver. The combined state space is defined by both sender and receiver, and we should assume we know little about the other side’s state space. Care should be taken that any time spent clarifying a message is addressing the combined state space and not just the individual’s states. Both parties are responsible for collaborating to achieve communication. Effective communication has not been achieved until the state has collapsed.