COMMUNICATION

The reason why I've chosen to include Communication into the standard SocioNihil vision instead of writing an article about it, is because a very skeptical view on communication is as necessary as the skeptical view on life, humanity and society, in order to understand the entire concept of SocioNihil.com. The first 4 parts of the SocioNihil vision mostly concern nihilism itsself and what can be derived from it; the vision on Communication, however, is a slight step further, as it takes nihilism as the basis for thoughts and points of view, but also accepts the current state of society and human interaction, and seeks a way to transcend the difficulties inherent within these dualistic aspects of human survival.
As such, it is a more progressive and creative view of SocioNihil.com. This being said though, one should not expect it to be more "soft" towards the standard human being than the other theories.


Assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups

That's the golden rule that should be kept in mind during the entire process of communication, or any process, for that matter.
If you've been able to construct a broad image of the SocioNihil vision and it's heritage, you'll know that certainties and proved facts are the ground rules for arguments. The SocioNihilist won't follow a type of philosophy, view on life or even thought or opinion if it can't be argumented with proved facts. That which can't be 100% proved by facts, could then either be plausible, implausible or even impossible.
If these are plausible, there's still a chance that it's impossible, if they are implausible, they are most likely impossible; both untill proved otherwise. If they are impossible, one shouldn't waste his time with such uncertainties and irrelevancies, and concern himself with things that are not only very plausible, but are nothing less than facts.

Anything that's less than a fact loses all its importance and relevance, and should be excluded as a factor for making decisions. If, somehow, one is forced to use implausible or even plausible arguments, that would mean that the person in question has chosen to assume that his argument is only possible, even though there is a chance that he could be wrong.
Following the theory of intelligence and fear, this decision is not wrong or right, but should prepare the person in question for a fuck-up, because: assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups.

This point of view is exactly the same when applied on communication and human interaction.

Example:
Jay tells Bob: "Your pants are grey."
Bob can react to this in many different ways. He can think that Jay implies that his pants are looking very grim and crappy, or that he likes the color grey and wishes to tell Bob so, or he could just make a spontaneous statement about the color of Bob's pants without any further intention.

Now, if Bob knows Jay quite well, he could be aware that Jay hates the color grey and actually find Bob's pants crappy. Or he could know that he likes the color grey and also likes to tell him so, using a complement. Or he could know that Jay is a dimwit and is often keen on forming his own opinions about things, such as the color of pants, and enjoys proudly stating his newly-formed personal opinion, without intending anything by it.

If any of these 3 possibilities are not the case, then any of Bob's initial 3 interpretations are either plausible, implausible or impossible, untill proved otherwise or literally confirmed by Jay, making the correct interpretation a fact. Untill any of the interpretations are made a fact, Bob's guess is as good as that of a mute badger in a Prada bag.

Accordingly, should Bob decide to complement Jay as well on his own color of pants in return, or should Bob dropkick Jay in return to his insult, or should Bob tell Jay to sod off and make unintentional irrelevant pointless statements about the obvious elsewhere, then Bob would most likely... fuck up!

He could of course gamble on the most plausible of interpretations, but that would change nothing to its plausibility, it wouldn't make it less uncertain; the only solution to be certain and to act according to facts and not fuck things up, would be to have made the correct interpretation into a fact. How?
By asking Jay what he actually meant. Simple!

As I read this, I find it to contain a high amount of kindergarten-schooling material. This is as unintentional as it is unavoidable, because it is so fucking simple. However, even though this one simple rule/technique to not fuck up when communicating and interacting with people, people still continuously make assumptions, and, hence, fuck things up.


I am certain that everyone reading this has at least once known someone (if not himself/herself) to make an assumption and interpretation of someone's behaviour, making a decision based upon this assumption (this non-fact), thinking he or her is right, causing consequences that are completely uncalled for and could easily be avoided. A simple "What do you mean?" can solve hundreds of thousands of issues, daily.
Note that I write from a Western-European perspective, and that this is a generalization, though bearing in mind that there àre people assertive enough to either not make a decision, or to ask what people actually mean before deciding. Unfortunately, until I have been totally been deprived of the ability to make this generalization, in return, people daily are being deprived of chances, opportunities, solutions and comfort; only because we are arrogant enough to think that our interpretation is the right one, and that we have the right to let our arrogance decide over the future of ourselves and others, based on fucking plausibilities.

Note as well, that this theory is linked thoroughly to the intelligence and fear theory. You can't decide to ask what people mean when you're too dumb to realize your interpretation could be false; you can't ask people what they mean when you're too scared shitless to ask them. Again, this makes neither of the aforementioned decisions wrong or right, only the consequences count for the individual.


Partial Conclusion:                                                                                                                          top

Like I said, any decision based on an unconfirmed interpretation means nothing. If you read the stuff I write about on this website and you make multiple interpretations, you know nothing, untill either has been confirmed by me.
If you read an article in the newspaper written by third (or more) parties, you know nothing, since you weren't there to confirm any of the interpretations written by the journalists, they are merely plausible, not facts (it sounds very pessimistic, but try to follow the newspapers and keep up with certain topics, see how many of the "facts" change after they obtain other elements form other parties or witnesses).
Any conversation in which people offer their personal opinions should never have any impact on your decisions, they are merely opinions, not facts. Allowing them to change your personal judgement would be the same as taking auspices and interpreting the flight of some random dove to be an argument for whether or not to buy a house.
Pretty much any theory found on the internet is only plausible, including this one!

Conclusion:                                                                                                                                  top

SocioNihilists are not fatalists. With this theory, again, I call people and most of their opinions and arguments futile, worthless, baseless. I don't get a rush out of depressing people, I seek solutions for mankind's weaknesses and flaws, I yearn for alternatives for fallacies and the circular reasoning currently used to cover up our futility.

We know very very little, and that which we think we know is quite hard to be proved, making it worthless. Again, we've got 3 options on how to deal with this.

1. Remain arrogant, keep up our egotistical ways of holding our own interpretations in  higher regard than that of others, refuse to accept that we could be wrong and keep making decisions based on mere plausibilities. Whatever keeps us from having to accept our worthlessness.
2. Kill ourself. Non cogito, ergo non sum. If we know nothing, what the hell are we doing here? Why should we continue to shame ourselves with our unintelligence? We know nothing, so we are nothing, so we shouldn't be. Now, where's that cyanide?
3. Know! If there are things we don't know, we should study and learn for ourselves. If there are acts and behaviours we aren't certain of, we should find a way to become certain of them, ask the people in question what they mean, communicate, learn facts.

We won't always have the opportunity to do so, uncertainties will always be part of our lives (why else would we, after more than 2 millenia, keep developing new philosophies trying to disprove uncertainties and comfort ourselves with fallacious theories and soothe our unrest that fears a meaningless doom), so often we don't have a choice but to make decisions based on them.
If we have studied, communicated and learned all that can be studied, communicated or learned, and still have nothing but uncertainties, we should still decide, but be aware that things can get fucked up.

We won't really have another choice, so it doesn't matter, does it? Making a progressive choice based on uncertainties is better than conservatively remaining stagnant and getting nowhere. As long as we're prepared for a fuck-up, we have nothing to regret.

But concerning communication and human interaction, there almost always is a way to get rid of multiple interpretations, plausible theories and possible fuck-ups. Ask and acquire, don't assume. If you do assume, then you know nothing and you shouldn't speak or decide. If you do, prepare for a fuck-up which is your responsability, and yours alone.

Surt                                                                                                                                               top